Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[Photo Engineer]

For those interested, Vittorio Storaro is visiting GEM this week. Here, Nick Brandreth is showing him how they make 35mm film. He used color negative film for his work, of course.

Dead Link Removed

 

[MattKing]

And George Eastman is watching over all

 

[Chris Livsey]

For those interested, Vittorio Storaro is visiting GEM this week. Here, Nick Brandreth is showing him how they make 35mm film. He used color negative film for his work, of course.
QUOTE]
Well most of it, he shot Cafe Society for Allen on digtal, Sony F65 CineAlta
"Practically, in Italy we no longer have Technicolor and we no longer have Kodak. We can’t be attached to one way of working."

https://www.sony.co.uk/pro/article/...io-storaro-shoot-woody-allen-cafe-society-f65
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/cinematographer-vittorio-storaro-warns-major-899691

But he is not convinced: "as close as possible to the level of film, even if it’s not yet there." (My bold)

 

[fdonadio]

The mask is one of the reasons color negatives print so much better than slides.

Please, someone (PE?) correct me if I'm wrong! From what I know, the orange mask in C-41 films is part of the whole film and print process "combo" that we know as C-41 and RA-4.

Failing to create a paper that would work with neutral (maskless) negatives — because of the spectral response of the paper emulsions —, Kodak found a solution: changing the paper emulsion to accept an orange-toned negative image and incorporating an integral orange mask to the film, so the processes are "mated". This technique, somehow, solved the problem of the paper's spectral response.

So, the mask is not a solution for quality in itself, but to overcome a hurdle in the development of the products/processes.

But I might be wrong, as always.


Cheers,
Flavio

 

[Prof_Pixel]

If anything is overrated, it is the grain/sharpness issue. All films today are very good in this regard.

...and the film grain/sharpness isn't the only player in the quality of the final image; let's not forget things like camera shake, lens focus accuracy and camera lens performance.

 

[cmacd123]

changing the paper emulsion to accept an orange-toned negative image and incorporating an integral orange mask to the film, so the processes are "mated". This technique, somehow, solved the problem of the paper's spectral response. So, the mask is not a solution for quality in itself, but to overcome a hurdle in the development of the products/processes.

My feble understanding is that some of the dyes have undesired colour absorbsion, bo the mask dyes appear in the areas where those dyes are not present, and are rendered colourless where the image dyes with the defects appear. The Printing then Dials out the Orange, with the colour correction filtration, and the unwanted abortion/mask just appears as Neutral density.

Way to prove it would be to print from an unmasked negative like "digibase". which would require a different "filter pack" with more yellow and Magenta, and would have colour artefacts from the lack of the mask

 

[MattKing]

changing the paper emulsion to accept an orange-toned negative image and incorporating an integral orange mask to the film, so the processes are "mated". This technique, somehow, solved the problem of the paper's spectral response.

The orange mask compensates for the limitations in both the film and the paper.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I have done prints from unmasked Agfa film and Sakura film and they turn out fine but with slight color imperfections.

The mask was developed to fix those imperfections. It is orange (and varies from film to film) due to the nature of individual dye imperfections. The paper is designed such that each layer is speed adjusted to match the density of the film using red speed (cyan layer) as the basis for the speed point. Thus the green speed (magenta layer) is about .5 log E faster than the red speed, and the blue speed (yellow layer) is about 1.0 log E faster than the red speed. In order to balance for most enlargers and keep a cyan free filter pack, an additional 0.5 log E is added to green and blue speeds. Thus the starting filter pack of 50R.

This is also true of the ECN and ECP family.

This huge speed offset means that no CLS (yellow filter) is needed in color paper or in ECP film.

PE

 

[RPC]

From what I understand, here is a basic explanation of how the mask works:

The dye impurities (undesired color absorptions), that appear in the negative color dye image, collectively form a negative orange image that taints the dye image. The mask, formed during processing, is a positive orange image that cancels the negative orange impurity image. Together they form the uniform orange color all over the dye image we see in CN film.

From what I can deduce the paper is balanced to completely cancel the uniform orange color when a print is made, but with some overkill, and PE explained why it is there; and it turns out that about 50R filtration (give or take) is needed to offset this overkill and balance the print.

Thus the orange color is eliminated from the print (which would be reversed in the print if it wasn't), and along with it the effects of the dye impurities (and mask), and print color is more accurate.

 

[Diapositivo]

I am with Henning when he states that the accuracy of colours in negatives is, in the normal life of the normal photographer, more theory than practice. You bring your negatives to different printers, and you get different colours. You print them by yourself and filtration gives more than a bit of head-scratching (I have no experience of filtration for printing, only of reversing during scanning, but the problem is the same).

In an industrial setup, with known light quality and a colour-balanced workflow with calibrated targets the colour purity advantage would certainly emerge. That explains in my mind the use of negatives in motion picture industry or in the mail-order catalogue industry.

But John Doe is not going to see better colour rendition. Or at least yours truly had a lot of trouble in having a true sky-blue sky from the few negatives he shot as an experiment.

Negative film requires, in my opinion, a complete colour-managed workflow to obtain acceptable colours easily. In that case, colour rendition will be superior.
Slide film gives you a tru sky-blue sky in any case and with no hassle at all.

Considering this is the thread about what place can slide film have (and Ferrania film as a consequence) in the choices of the ordinary consumer, I agree with Henning that, for the ordinary consumer, slide film has advantages over negative film as a general-purpose film.

You can look at the images with the loupe, you can project them, you can scan them and pass them on to social fora at home easily, and you can have them printed at a lab as well. If you scan at home to post to Facebook, as most would do, things are much easier with slides.

If you develop your negatives at home, than you have to make some decent workflow management, or you will end up with the awful results one can see on the net, of badly scanned negatives followed by enthusiastic comments

Scanning of negatives that one sees over the net is so poor that the digital generation identifies digital accuracy as "surgically precise" and badly scanned negatives as "pictures as our fathers would see them". And they would even use digital filters to worsen the colour rendition and say it mimics film.

 

[Berri]

And what do you know about industrial engineering?

I don't need to know about industrial engineering to say that. what do I know about film manufacturing to believe anything they would say? Nothing. Again I don't need to know anything abouth nothing to be free not to believe in their timetable.

 

[RattyMouse]

I don't need to know about industrial engineering to say that. what do I know about film manufacturing to believe anything they would say? Nothing. Again I don't need to know anything abouth nothing to be free not to believe in their timetable.

Yes you are completely free to believe whatever you want. Thank you for making clear that you have no credibility in matters of film manufacturing.

 

[railwayman3]

Yes you are completely free to believe whatever you want. Thank you for making clear that you have no credibility in matters of film manufacturing.

Perhaps he has some credibility in matters of common sense ?

 

[railwayman3]

Over breakfast this morning, my wife suddenly said to me "Did you ever hear from that film company you sent some money two or three years ago?" I said they were still promising the film later this year. Her reply was "Do you think it was a scam to get money ? ".

If one unconnected person can say that, Ferrania perhaps ought to think very carefully what might be starting to happen to their public image ?

 

[Diapositivo]

Over breakfast this morning, my wife suddenly said to me "Did you ever hear from that film company you sent some money two or three years ago?" I said they were still promising the film later this year. Her reply was "Do you think it was a scam to get money ? ".

If one unconnected person can say that, Ferrania perhaps ought to think very carefully what might be starting to happen to their public image ?

Your answer could have been: "Oh, money very well spent. They savaged tons of industrial machinery, some of that was put to use, some of that will come handy later. They have refurbished the factory, put together a small but very capable team, and they are already working on coating! Imagine that, as a by-product of their path toward creating slide film, they have made a very interesting B&W material, very similar to an historical film of the past, the one used by Fellini and other great ones, and that film is in alpha testing now, and they will soon be distributing it as a reward for backers, but I preferred to wait for the slide film.
Overall I am very satisfied with how the things have progressed. It's a dream we have supported, and the dream is becoming reality!".

You could have added: "money much better spent than in another unnecessary pair of shoes"

 

[RPC]

...I agree with Henning that, for the ordinary consumer, slide film has advantages over negative film as a general-purpose film.

I disagree. History is the proof. Negatives have always been the medium of choice for the consumer over slides. Few project today, so negatives are even more favorable. The consumer has no other real use for slides, since both can be scanned with good quality. The better quality of prints from negatives, lower cost, and ease of processing and printing is the icing on the cake.

 

[fdonadio]

You could have added: "money much better spent than in another unnecessary pair of shoes"

You are clearly not married (or have a very cool spouse, which is rare)! If I talk like that to my wife, my breakfast (and, possibly, the whole day) will taste sour.

 

[railwayman3]

Your answer could have been: "Oh, money very well spent. They savaged tons of industrial machinery, some of that was put to use, some of that will come handy later. They have refurbished the factory, put together a small but very capable team, and they are already working on coating! Imagine that, as a by-product of their path toward creating slide film, they have made a very interesting B&W material, very similar to an historical film of the past, the one used by Fellini and other great ones, and that film is in alpha testing now, and they will soon be distributing it as a reward for backers, but I preferred to wait for the slide film.
Overall I am very satisfied with how the things have progressed. It's a dream we have supported, and the dream is becoming reality!".

You could have added: "money much better spent than in another unnecessary pair of shoes"

Actually, my wife is a very competent photographer, but she lost some interest when Kodachrome vanished. Her gear for many years has been quite simple, Leica M3, with standard and w/a lenses, keeping to one make of color slide film and one make of B&W. She has no interest in experimenting or reading about the technical side of photography (and isn't impressed by B/S), just gets on and takes pictures....and usually better pictures than mine, I'm ashamed to say.

As regards shoes and clothes, she's self-sufficient, so long as I like what she wears (which I generally
do ).

The breakfast discussion moved on to whether she ought to buy a classic MG......

 

[Brady Eklund]

I disagree. History is the proof. Negatives have always been the medium of choice for the consumer over slides. Few project today, so negatives are even more favorable. The consumer has no other real use for slides, since both can be scanned with good quality. The better quality of prints from negatives, lower cost, and ease of processing and printing is the icing on the cake.

I think it's mostly about the way negatives worked with the analog print processors that were dominant up into the 90's. Once all the consumer labs went to digital, there was no practical disadvantage to using positive film for making prints. The workflow is identical. The colors are corrected the same way. I don't remember what film prices were like in the 90's so I might be off base here, but it was probably primarily the difference in price for E-6 film and processing that prevented it from becoming dominant once digital printing became the norm. By the time the analog minilabs were all phased out, digital photography was already starting to threaten the film market, and another revolution in the industry just wasn't in the cards. Had there been another generation of development at the industry's peak, I do think positive film would have become the dominant medium.

 

[Nzoomed]

I think it's mostly about the way negatives worked with the analog print processors that were dominant up into the 90's. Once all the consumer labs went to digital, there was no practical disadvantage to using positive film for making prints. The workflow is identical. The colors are corrected the same way. I don't remember what film prices were like in the 90's so I might be off base here, but it was probably primarily the difference in price for E-6 film and processing that prevented it from becoming dominant once digital printing became the norm. By the time the analog minilabs were all phased out, digital photography was already starting to threaten the film market, and another revolution in the industry just wasn't in the cards. Had there been another generation of development at the industry's peak, I do think positive film would have become the dominant medium.

I think E6 is even better for digital scanning.

 

[bvy]

So when will P30 start shipping?

 

[RattyMouse]

Over breakfast this morning, my wife suddenly said to me "Did you ever hear from that film company you sent some money two or three years ago?" I said they were still promising the film later this year. Her reply was "Do you think it was a scam to get money ? ".

If one unconnected person can say that, Ferrania perhaps ought to think very carefully what might be starting to happen to their public image ?

Given your substantially inadequate answer, her misunderstanding is understandable.

How can you expect someone who is uninformed of the actual situation to make a proper assessment of the situation?

 

[afriman]

Perhaps he has some credibility in matters of common sense ?

Unlike rodents, apparently.

Given your substantially inadequate answer, her misunderstanding is understandable.

How can you expect someone who is uninformed of the actual situation to make a proper assessment of the situation?

Just how informed do you believe the public to be? Do you think they are better placed to make "a proper assessment?"
Come to think of it, are the readers of this thread kept sufficiently informed of "the actual situation"?

 

[Agulliver]

My wife has occasionally asked if anything is happening with the Italian film company.....and I've kept her updated. She's happy that I contributed what we could easily afford, to a cause that I personally wished to support. She's done similar. Plucking an idea from thin air, if she gives money to a child protection charity, I am not going to argue "That was a waste because there was a headline the other day about child abuse in Town X".

 

[railwayman3]

My wife has occasionally asked if anything is happening with the Italian film company.....and I've kept her updated. She's happy that I contributed what we could easily afford, to a cause that I personally wished to support. She's done similar. Plucking an idea from thin air, if she gives money to a child protection charity, I am not going to argue "That was a waste because there was a headline the other day about child abuse in Town X".

Your logic is very convoluted. My wife's remark was an outsiders "general public".reaction to the long delays by Ferrania. Its the outsiders buying, or otherwise,of Ferrania products which will make or break the company, not the relatively few who spend their time making "proper assessments" of "the actual situation". The outsiders buying can only depend on their impressions of Ferrania's behaviour. Else, why not just buy Ilford, Kodak, Fuji, Adox, etc., which they see as OK. Even buying Lomo, you know what you're getting, if that's what you want.

If I buy custard at the grocers, I don't spend time "making proper assessments of the actual situation" of the manufacturer. I buy on the known quality of the brand, whether it's readily available when I need it, and at a fair price....and, yes, rightly or wrongly, perhaps advertising and attractive packaging helps. And I want a reliable product, I don't want to pay to be the tester of something which may have faults.