It is a pity that Ferrania film was not more aggressively marketed a Ferrania, at least in Italy. All the photographers I know thought the factory shut its doors in the 60s.
...somewhere on the Internets I was researching old super8 film and it seems 3M in Ferrania did make a K11 or K12 compatibile film in the early 70's!
Nzoomed, my suggestion was to make an E6 compatible film with the same color response. I think this could be a hit with people who, for days and months and years are wishing to be able to see K25 and K64 colors again. PE has mentioned that this is doable.
The Kodachrome processes are way too long and complex to be a good choice for a film in the XXI century... As for making the actual Kodachrome-compatible film, i am no photo engineer (pun intended), but I could bet that is easier to make a K14-compatible film than to make an E6-compatible film, since the structure is simpler.
And Photo Engineer has said in the past that of all films (B&W, C41-type, E6-type), the E-6 films were the most difficult to design due to various factors. So if our heroes at Ferrania can engineer a E-6 film, then they can engineer any other film.
Curiously, i was reading some back issues of Pop Photo on Google Books and found a test of 3M ColorSlide 640T against Kodak Ektachrome 160T. It is the year 1980 and with this film 3M (made by Ferrania, Italy) is now the undisputed fastest slide film:
https://books.google.com.pe/books?id=txFmVbE2EoUC
From the test, the conclusions are that the colors are really good, "realistic", and that it can be pushed to ISO 2560 (!!), which is amazingly fast for a tungsten balanced film even today. The downside is that it was noticeably grainier. Of course that is expected, if it is 2 stop faster than the Kodak product. But i would love to have this stuff in 120 format, where grain would not be a problem, in fact, it could be an asset (sometimes medium format looks too clean!)
So in 1980, the engineers at Ferrania were able to compete against Kodak... That means they had pretty good resources, at least in 1980.
It is curious and surprising than in 2016 the ones who will "save" color film did not come from Rochester nor Leverkusen nor Japan, but from Liguria. Perhaps Wolfen will also want to come to the rescue and produce color film as well?
You had whiteboards back then?
The dye that made Kodachrome unique was the cyan dye. The method of incorporation enhanced stability of the image and keeping of the film. It was also a major factor in the sharpness, as this process creates a relief image.
The film is so thin though it is very hard to coat evenly in a slide or curtain coater. Thinness is what gave it some sharpness as well.
PE
Currently, that's up to individual members. One can freely use one's real name as a user name.
If, on the other hand, you intended to communicate that you wish this forum would mandate use of real names, I wholeheartedly agree. I'd extend that to all other Internet forums and commenting systems. In my opinion, doing so would go a long way toward returning civility to the world.
I don't want to know your name or anyone else's. My point was that the Internet is replete with huge quantities of incivility. Much, if not most, of it is perpetrated from behind anonymous 'user names' Certainly not all, but the vast majority of such, what's the word, crap would be eliminated if real identities were mandatory. I'd consider the improvement worthwhile even if it dissuaded those who are afraid that their actions/activities might invite trouble from participating....I'd be happy to send you a private message with my full name - you're probably safe, you live on the other side of the world!...
The dye that made Kodachrome unique was the cyan dye. The method of incorporation enhanced stability of the image and keeping of the film. It was also a major factor in the sharpness, as this process creates a relief image.
The film is so thin though it is very hard to coat evenly in a slide or curtain coater. Thinness is what gave it some sharpness as well.
PE
I don't want to know your name or anyone else's. My point was that the Internet is replete with huge quantities of incivility. Much, if not most, of it is perpetrated from behind anonymous 'user names'
3. We are Anonymous
4. Anonymous is legion
5. Anonymous never forgives
6. Anonymous can be a horrible, senseless, uncaring monster
7. Anonymous is still able to deliver
8. There are no real rules about posting
11. All your carefully picked arguments can easily be ignored
12. Anything you say can and will be used against you
13. Anything you say can be turned into something else - fixed
14. Do not argue with trolls - it means that they win
15. The harder you try the harder you will fail
16. If you fail in epic proportions, it may just become a winning failure
17. Every win fails eventually
18. Everything that can be labeled can be hated
19. The more you hate it the stronger it gets
20. Nothing is to be taken seriously
25. Relation to the original topic decreases with every single post
26. Any topic can easily be turned into something totally unrelated
28. Always question a person's gender - just in case it's really a man
29. In the internet all girls are men and all kids are undercover FBI agents
30. There are no girls on the internet
32. You must have pictures to prove your statements
38. No real limits of any kind apply here - not even the sky
39. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL
40. EVEN WITH CRUISE CONTROL YOU STILL HAVE TO STEER
42. Nothing is Sacred.
43. The more beautiful and pure a thing is - the more satisfying it is to corrupt it
4. I use my full name on Photo Net.
3. Each product generation uses a different BoM. For example, the film I worked on (400 Gold) used a new stabilizer for the emulsion and a new green sensitizing dye to improve color reproduction. The generation after mine had t-grains.PE
Interesting. I was just talking to a friend about this last night. Many slides, other than Kodachrome, went to ruddy orange as they faded, especially slides done through those 5247/5254/SFW type ventures (they are actually negatives of negatives)
I am not sure you would be able to answer -either because of not being privy to the information, or being in the area of confedentiality, but where these "newer" materials more or less expensive to make? (longer more complicated synthesis stage, more exotic ingredients)
Supposedly some of the "value priced" lines of private label and promotional film used older formulas, but were the older formulas cheaper to make?
I need no welcome to the Internet. I've been participating in photography forums since 1998.All i can say is: "Welcome to the internet"
Here is a subset of the classic "rules of the internet" list. After years of posting on internet forums you will get a laugh out of this list...
I need no welcome to the Internet. I've been participating in photography forums since 1998.
The list elicited no laugh from me. I stand by the position that real names ought be required.
Because in post #888 Dave lamented that he didn't know the real name behind "Photo Engineer" and wished he did. Every post on the subject since then has been follow up.Why are we still discussing whether to register with real names or not?...
Why are we still discussing whether to register with real names or not? Isn't that a topic for another thread, or perhaps for no thread at all?
If a forum requires "real names", what's to stop someone signing up with any random, but real-sounding, name, e.g. Richard Smith or Simon Brown ?
Ektar uses a mix of cubic grains and t-grains to achieve its unique characteristics. A very similar formula is found in ECN - Vision films.
I've also seen many statements saying similar about Portra and it's relationship to the Vision products
OT question for you Ron, if you know or care to speculate, are the Visions, Portras and Ektar tweaked versions of essentially the same basic product aimed at different applications?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?