Like many things, this will need to wait a while. If things go our way this year, 2018 will be the "Year of Odd Formats" for FILM Ferrania.
Look at the problems that Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are having with backing papers. They all had it right when they made their own, but when they outsourced it to other companies, using their own formulas, the backing paper problems began. This is no easy task. Inks, black absorbing paper and paper itself must be each perfect for the job. Any slight error will ruin the paper and finally the film.
PE
Did you contribute to the original E-6 Kickstarter? If so, you should get a notice once their store is up and running. Mid-February is what they’re hoping for.
Jim B.
PE, the dearth of Fuji examples of this problem is to me, very very telling. I have yet to see a single case of Fuji's paper causing issues. Are you 100% sure that they are using the exact same paper as everyone else?
Yes original backer.
I receive their kickstarter updates and I sent few mails through the years but they never answered me...I changed address and I informed them but again getting in touch with Ferrania has been impossible for me.
But selling or even shutting down the production facilities that produce backing paper and terminating the employment of the people who did the work can make a huge positive difference to a balance sheet.You would have thought that Kodak and Fuji would have kept making their own paper if it indeed costs more than the film itself, as mentioned here outsourcing would increase costs.
Getting in touch with us is hardly impossible. We have contact forms on our site, I post here pretty regularly and I think you can email me from here - or at least message me, you can contact us through Kickstarter and I'm sure there are one or two other ways...
If you "sent few mails through the years" and we didn't answer, I personally apologize because that's my job.
My email address is d.bias@filmferrania.it - email away!
Im actually surprised it was even possible, I mean, its a very special product. I would have thought that the equipment for cutting it etc would have to have been designed and owned by the film manufacturers themselves.But selling or even shutting down the production facilities that produce backing paper and terminating the employment of the people who did the work can make a huge positive difference to a balance sheet.
You do understand, don't you, that a backing paper production line big enough to service the film markets of the 1980s might have sufficient capacity to service 100 times the film markets of today? And that it costs a fortune to maintain radically underused, high capacity production facilities.
Most likely.IDK, but what was the issue with the numbers being "impressed" into the film?
Was it causing a chemical reaction with the emulsion?
Im actually surprised it was even possible, I mean, its a very special product. I would have thought that the equipment for cutting it etc would have to have been designed and owned by the film manufacturers themselves.
If special inks were used, you think Kodak could have supplied them to the people printing, but perhaps their machinery cant work with it properly?
IDK, but what was the issue with the numbers being "impressed" into the film?
Was it causing a chemical reaction with the emulsion?
Yes this is possible, although Fuji and kodak had different printing, and this would make it harder.Kodak could have kept production or scaled it down and sold to everyone else...I can't believe this backing paper issue is rocket science..
Haven't spent much time in the marketplace, have youYou would need the master roll printed in one go with fuji, ilford and Kodak and then would have to be slit between each section, I guess this is doable, but would need to be agreed on by all parties
no, but i can see its going to even be more of a problem if its intended to reintroduce 127, 126 and 110 films (lomography are obviously getting the paper from somewhere)Haven't spent much time in the marketplace, have you.
Nope, just really specialized, with really narrow tolerances. The sort of thing that is a bugger to deal with while achieving both high quality and economies of scale.Kodak could have kept production or scaled it down and sold to everyone else...I can't believe this backing paper issue is rocket science..
no, but i can see its going to even be more of a problem if its intended to reintroduce 127, 126 and 110 films (lomography are obviously getting the paper from somewhere)
I would suspect they have a conversion facility in china perhaps that is packaging the stuff in various formats slitting down from bulk rolls.I have to try yet Lomography CN in 120, supposedly their paper is different and not as "waxed" as Kodak, Fuji & Ilford. But they also ran into the same problems, even more pronounced, saw reports about paper issues.
Supposedly their CN 120 says "made in China", film could very well Kodak contract coated and finished there. Maybe using some chinese facilities.
I would suspect they have a conversion facility in china perhaps that is packaging the stuff in various formats slitting down from bulk rolls.
I know that Lomography had been using Agfa aviphot negative in their CN films in 110 format and 120 etc.
In fact, if the film is processed in D-96, the tonal curve is quite amazing with an extremely wide range of gray tones. Nicola's "horse" picture was processed in D-96. But D-96 is not a common developer in most labs and nearly impossible to purchase for "average" people.
Lomography :
Most of these films had the same backing paper in 120 format, so the conversion seems to have been done by the same company, not by the film manufacturers. As you say, probably in China, however the boxes said other countries, not only china: "Made in the EU",
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?