Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[afriman]

I wouldn't store C41 in the cupboard among the other useful kitchen stuff, like acetic acid, sodium hydrogen carbonate, glycerol triesters, or the scariest (2R,3R,4S,5S,6R)-2-[(2S,3S,4S,5R)-3,4-dihydroxy-2,5-bis(hydroxymethyl)oxolan-2-yl]oxy-6-(hydroxymethyl)oxane-3,4,5-triol aka sugar.

Very true. But I do believe that Richard Eaton has a point: the general perception of these chemicals is uninformed and biased.

 

[Agulliver]

Very true. But I do believe that Richard Eaton has a point: the general perception of these chemicals is uninformed and biased.

He's right, if the perception is the thrust of his point. The hazard symbols on photo chemicals are less frightening for the most part than those on your average drain cleaner...but the word "chemical" freaks people out.

As does the word "nuclear"....again often for totally illogical reasons.

 

[Henning Serger]

Dear Brady,

The owner of the lab I get my slides processed at (his business is mostly just E-6 developing) told me that Fuji had already shut down their production lines for their slide film and are just selling off old stock. When they run out they'll fire the lines up again, make a few batches, and shut down again, probably raising the price as much as necessary to sustain that kind of operation, but leaving it very vulnerable to the ax if they decide it isn't worth it.

your lab owner is misunderstanding what is normal and standard production method in film production: Film production is not like e.g. car production where each model has its own production line and is produced every day.
Film production is very different: It is batch production. A (bigger) batch of a certain film (or photopaper) is coated, and the produced master rolls / parent rolls / Jumbo rolls are then cold stored. And from these cold stored rolls in the following weeks / months / years then the film will be converted / finished to 135 / 120 / sheet film. When the stock of cold stored master rolls is depleted, a new batch will be made (emulsion) and coated.
And the time between new coating runs is quite long. Example: Even at peak film sales in 1999 / 2000 Agfa (Leverkusen, Germany) coated BW film and paper in a 1.5 year schedule. So 18 months between coating runs!
That was and is just normal business at film manufacturing plants.
Lots of films (and BW photo papers) we use today are coated in 2 or 3 year schedules. It's just standard current business in the industry.

I visited the Harman technology / Ilford Photo factory in Mobberley in 2013 (Simon Galley being our tour guide; Simon, you are missed!). At that time only on three days per month the coating machine was operating (and then in a 3-shift 24h mode). The rest of the month: no coating. But of course finishing of products.
As since then the demand for Ilford film and paper has increased (confirmed by them), they may be running their coating machine perhaps 4 days per month now (but that is a guess).

And there are no separated "colour negative film lines" and "reversal film lines" and "BW negative film lines": Kodak is coating all its films on one coating machine. The same is valid for Fujifilm. Ilford, Foma, InovisCoat and Adox are even coating film and photopaper on the same machines (Kodak Alaris RA-4 silver halide photo paper is coated by Carestream for Kodak Alaris; Fujifilm has its own separate RA-4 production plant in Tilburg, Netherlands. The annual RA-4 production volume is much bigger than the annual film production volume).

The higher the demand, the more often coating runs are made. Look at the excellent film documentation about Fujifilm: Their finishing line for Instax is running 24h a day in 3 shifts. To "feed" such a huge production volume you need several big coating runs a year for the colour negative film base used in Instax films.

This is why the return of Ektachrome has me worried that it will lead to Fuji pulling out of E-6 altogether,

Don't worry too much. That is very unlikely, because of several reasons:
1. Reversal films are not homogeneous products. They are not identical, they have all different characteristics. Fujifilm told me that the production stop of Ektachrome in 2012 has not influenced their sales very much. Surprising? No, because
- those who used Ektachrome in 2012 were mostly Ektachrome lovers: They have tested Fuji reversal films in the past, but preferred Ektachrome
- and these real hardcore Ektachrome lovers filled their fridges and freezers with Ektachrome stock for several years and continued using it; that is the majority of the user base
- those who don't loved Ektachrome so much switched to either negative film, Fuji reversal or digital.

If now Ektachrome comes back, mostly the former hardcore users will use it again (lots of the fridges are probably now empty ).
And certainly also some of the young guys which are now discovering film the first time in their life ("digital natives") will try it (and Fuji and Film Ferrania reversal film, too).
They are a very important factor in the film-revival.

2. We see an increasing demand for BW and professional colour film in the main film markets. Why should all these films rises in demand, and only colour reversal film decline in demand? Quite unlikely. The tide raises all boats.
Especially if we start a good marketing for reversal film again. From my numerous talks with Dave Bias I am convinced Film Ferrania knows the need for that and will do it. And the first activities of Kodak in January concerning Ektachrome let me hope that even Kodak has understood the unique advantages of reversal film and the necessity for a proper marketing of them.

3. Those who love Provia and the Velvias will continue to use them. Ektachrome or the new FF film are very different and cannot replace the Fujichromes. They are unique.
I've recently talked to Fujifilm film representatives and they told me that they continue reversal film production.

There is a really good chance for a sustainable long-term film-revival that also includes a sustainable reversal film revival!
It is in our hands!!
Just let's do it!!
Shoot more reversal film, show your brillant results to other photographers and motivate them to start using it, too.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

Hello Richard,

I wonder what the potential market for E6 films really is ?

the potential is quite big.
Because reversal film has lots of advantages and unique characteristics. Have a look here: A 6-page document made by several professional film photographers and photo technology experts listing all unique characteristics, technical and economical advantages as well as emotional characteristics of reversal film:
https://www.aphog.de/wp-content/downloads/Diapositiv/Ein einzigartiges Bildmedium-das Diapositiv.pdf
(English translation is in the works).

I am shooting both colour negative and reversal film for decades (and of course BW negative/reversal and instant film, too). Professionally and for my own pleasure as an enthusiast. And for more than 25 years now I am doing scientific film tests in my own little independent optical test lab.
Comparing colour reversal and negative film in a neutral side-by-side comparison, there are indeed more advantages for reversal film.

What is absolutely needed to exploit this big potential is a much better marketing for reversal film.
But that is also partly in our own hands.
Just let's do it!

Best regards,
Henning

 

[flavio81]

Gold award for Henning Serger! Excellent post!

I've recently talked to Fujifilm film representatives and they told me that they continue reversal film production.

Of course, at the prices they charge for their reversal films, it's obvious that they will keep making them as long as there are buyers there...

(I have a love-hate relationship with Fuji. I love their films, i hate how they raise prices constantly.)

 

[afriman]

I'm sure price is a major deterrent in the wider adoption of slide film, especially among new and younger film users. Those who haven't grown up with slides, don't know what they're missing. With some good marketing, it should be possible to awaken their interest -- but it will be a hard sell if the price remains several times that of colour neg. Not to speak of the cost of processing and the difficulty of finding somewhere to have it processed. These issues will have to be addressed by the Film Ferrania project for their E6 film to have any chance of becoming viable.

 

[Henning Serger]

Gold award for Henning Serger! Excellent post!

Thank you.

Of course, at the prices they charge for their reversal films, it's obvious that they will keep making them as long as there are buyers there...

(I have a love-hate relationship with Fuji. I love their films, i hate how they raise prices constantly.)

Well, Kodak has done the same (e.g. Kodak colour negative sheet film is now much, much more expensive here in Germany than Fujichrome sheet film). Both had to do it to keep production running. No company can survive by making losses.
I prefer having the films I like at a bit higher price compared to not having my favourite films at all.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

I'm sure price is a major deterrent in the wider adoption of slide film, especially among new and younger film users. Those who haven't grown up with slides, don't know what they're missing. With some good marketing, it should be possible to awaken their interest -- but it will be a hard sell if the price remains several times that of colour neg.

Well, I don't know the situation in South Africa where you are located, but in the big main markets the price for reversal film is not several times the price of colour negative film. For example here in Germany AgfaPhoto CT Precisa (= cut from Provia 100F jumbo rolls) is even significantly cheaper (!) than Ektar and Portra 160 (and delivers better detail rendition: higher resolution, better sharpness, finer grain).
And you have to consider the overall costs:
With reversal film you already have a perfect finished picture after development. No further steps and costs needed.
With negative film you always have to add either printing and / or scanning with significant additional costs.
As said above, I am shooting both reversal and negative film: My overall costs for reversal film are significantly lower than my overall negative film costs.

Not to speak of the cost of processing and the difficulty of finding somewhere to have it processed. These issues will have to be addressed by the Film Ferrania project for their E6 film to have any chance of becoming viable.

That is also dependent on the country / region / market. In the main markets the E6 infrastructure is there, enough excellent E6 labs with reasonable prices.
There are also some outstanding labs which offer E6 development for less (!) compared to C41 development (e.g. Photo Studio 13 in Germany or AgX Imaging in the US).
And of course you always have the possibility to develop E6 at home. It is easy and extremely cheap. Fuji Hunt, Tetenal and Bellini are offering home developing E6 kits.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Richard Eaton]

Hello Richard,



the potential is quite big.
Because reversal film has lots of advantages and unique characteristics. Have a look here: A 6-page document made by several professional film photographers and photo technology experts listing all unique characteristics, technical and economical advantages as well as emotional characteristics of reversal film:
https://www.aphog.de/wp-content/downloads/Diapositiv/Ein einzigartiges Bildmedium-das Diapositiv.pdf
(English translation is in the works).

I am shooting both colour negative and reversal film for decades (and of course BW negative/reversal and instant film, too). Professionally and for my own pleasure as an enthusiast. And for more than 25 years now I am doing scientific film tests in my own little independent optical test lab.
Comparing colour reversal and negative film in a neutral side-by-side comparison, there are indeed more advantages for reversal film.

What is absolutely needed to exploit this big potential is a much better marketing for reversal film.
But that is also partly in our own hands.
Just let's do it!

Best regards,
Henning

Thank you, that give me some optimism.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

The Pre-Order batch is now sold out.

 

[afriman]

Well, I don't know the situation in South Africa where you are located, but in the big main markets the price for reversal film is not several times the price of colour negative film.

I was very hesitant when I wrote that, because I knew it was going to prove highly contentious! What you say is certainly true. I was debating with myself whether I should say "significantly more expensive" or "often as much as double the price", etc. etc. But I kept coming back to my own experience in trying to find the most affordable film. As elsewhere, Precisa is by far the cheapest slide film over here - about two thirds the price of Provia or Velvia. In that respect, it's good value and all that I've been shooting in 35mm for quite a while now. Unfortunately, it's not available in 120. Even more unfortunately, its availability over here is extremely limited. I managed to get a few rolls a while back, but for several months now the only local supplier I know of has been out of stock. I frequently order some from places like Macodirect and the price is still good, but most users simply won't go to that trouble.

In contrast, Fujicolor Superia 200 can easily be had for 40% of the price of Precisa, and Fujicolor C200 for 33%. If one is willing to buy outdated film, Kodak Gold 200 that expired in 2015 is about 25% of the price of Precisa. In the case of Provia and Velvia, the price is four times that of Superia 200.

If you shoot 120, your choices are more limited, without cheaper options like Precisa, Superia and Gold. The price difference between slides and negatives generally is smaller, but you can still have Fujicolor 400H for about half the price of Provia 100F.

As far as I am aware, the price difference between slides and negatives is also pretty big in the US. I recently compared film prices at B&H (from whom I sometimes order): Precisa is $13.99 - almost double the price I pay over here or when ordering from Macodirect (and the latter includes shipping and customs). Ironically, at B&H it's even significantly more expensive than Provia 100F ($10.19)! By comparison, AgfaPhoto Vista Plus colour negative film costs $3.49.

With reversal film you already have a perfect finished picture after development. No further steps and costs needed.

That's one of the biggest appeals of colour slide film. But only really if your ultimate goal is to project the slides - an experience I really hope the younger generation will discover! In most cases, though, I suspect scans will be made. Which, to my mind, almost negates the point of shooting slides in the first place.

As far as I can tell from other posts, finding good E6 processing is a major problem in many parts of the world. Over here, I have only come across two options - one is a lab and the other a guy who does it at home. In both cases it's significantly more expensive than C41. I do my own processing, but I don't think that's what most users would want to do. And just getting hold of the chemicals is fraught with difficulties.

I'm dreaming of a small slide revival, and with the right kind of publicity and marketing, I believe it's possible. I've urged one of the few local suppliers to consider splitting large packs of chemicals into smaller kits to sell online. We have Cpac Africa who manufacture and supply chemicals very economically (that is one blessing for enthusiasts like myself), but only in large quantities.

Kind regards
Anton

 

[Diapositivo]

That's one of the biggest appeals of colour slide film. But only really if your ultimate goal is to project the slides - an experience I really hope the younger generation will discover! In most cases, though, I suspect scans will be made. Which, to my mind, almost negates the point of shooting slides in the first place.

Little off-topic

scanning slides is much easier than scanning negatives in my experience. Negatives have the grain more evident in the high lights rather than in the shadows, as slide do, which is much more pleasant. And negatives create a lot of head-scratching when one must colour-balance them.

The advantage of negatives, in hybrid workflow, is that they compress high-dynamic-range scenes into a low-dynamic-range film which is easy to scan with any scanner.

In order to capture, in scanning, the entire dynamic range of the slide film one must have a serious scanner.

End of Off-topic.

 

[RattyMouse]

Thank you.



Well, Kodak has done the same (e.g. Kodak colour negative sheet film is now much, much more expensive here in Germany than Fujichrome sheet film). Both had to do it to keep production running. No company can survive by making losses.
I prefer having the films I like at a bit higher price compared to not having my favourite films at all.

Best regards,
Henning

I would pay a lot of money, A LOT, if I could shoot Fuji Reala 100 again. Why Fujifilm discontinued that film is simply beyond belief. NO chance was given for that film to survive. It was just killed. It went from $4/roll to gone. I would have happily, HAPPILY have paid more to continue to shoot Reala.

 

[RattyMouse]

Little off-topic

scanning slides is much easier than scanning negatives in my experience. Negatives have the grain more evident in the high lights rather than in the shadows, as slide do, which is much more pleasant. And negatives create a lot of head-scratching when one must colour-balance them.

The advantage of negatives, in hybrid workflow, is that they compress high-dynamic-range scenes into a low-dynamic-range film which is easy to scan with any scanner.

In order to capture, in scanning, the entire dynamic range of the slide film one must have a serious scanner.

End of Off-topic.

My experience is the exact opposite. I find scanning slides almost impossible. The color accuracy is simply abysmal and no amount of adjustments make it right. It is so bad that I have stopped shooting E6 film, despite having many many rolls in my freezer.

 

[Berri]

My experience is the exact opposite. I find scanning slides almost impossible. The color accuracy is simply abysmal and no amount of adjustments make it right. It is so bad that I have stopped shooting E6 film, despite having many many rolls in my freezer.

with negative film you don't know how it is supposed to look like, so you just accept your results. With slides you have a direct view of the image so you have to adjust more to make your scan looking like the slide, this may involve some heavy manipulation like selective colour balance.

 

[Cholentpot]

My experience is the exact opposite. I find scanning slides almost impossible. The color accuracy is simply abysmal and no amount of adjustments make it right. It is so bad that I have stopped shooting E6 film, despite having many many rolls in my freezer.

Frozen film? That won't be shot?

...SOS...please...send...film...SOS...

 

[afriman]

Little off-topic

scanning slides is much easier than scanning negatives in my experience. Negatives have the grain more evident in the high lights rather than in the shadows, as slide do, which is much more pleasant. And negatives create a lot of head-scratching when one must colour-balance them.

The advantage of negatives, in hybrid workflow, is that they compress high-dynamic-range scenes into a low-dynamic-range film which is easy to scan with any scanner.

In order to capture, in scanning, the entire dynamic range of the slide film one must have a serious scanner.

End of Off-topic.

These are important considerations for those doing their own scanning. I had the more casual user in mind, who orders some cheap scans when having their film processed.

 

[Henning Serger]

My experience is the exact opposite. I find scanning slides almost impossible.

Besides that I have to totally disagree concerning scanning from my own experience (Diapositivo's and Berri's statements are spot on), the huge advantage of reversal film is that scanning is simply not needed. There is no necessity to take the time / hassle / cost of the scanning process. You have a perfect finished picture right after the film development.
Just take a light-box, for example like the excellent new Kaiser LED "slimlite plano":
http://kaiser-fototechnik.de/en/produkte/2_1_sortiment.asp?w=381
and take an excellent slide loupe from Schneider-Kreuznach, Rodenstock, Leica, Kaiser, Adox, Peak etc.
Voilà!
Then you have perfect quality which surpasses any picture on a computer monitor (no matter whether scanned negative or positive film, or digital file). A computer monitor is the viewing medium with by far the lowest quality (by far lowest resolution, no real half-tones because of the discrete LCD structure, problematic colour rendition especially with low and medium priced models).

When I look at my slides on my Kaiser light-box with my Schneider, Rodenstock or Adox loupes......what a joy!!! When I compare that to even my drumscans on my monitor (negative and positive scans), the monitor pictures cannot compete at all, they are quite crappy compared to the slides under the loupes.
Besides the outstanding detail rendition and colour brillance, slides under an excellent loupe also have a kind of three-dimensionality, which looks just great. Pictures on computer monitors are totally flat in comparison.

We are are living in a crazy, marketing brain-washed world: People spending thousands of dollars for a 24, 36, 50 MP cam. And in 99,5% of the time they are only viewing their pictures on a 2k or 4k computer monitor which destroy the resolution and limit it to the extremely low 2 MP / 8 MP the monitor can show at max..
Same for those who rave about medium format or large format quality, but then in a first step destroy that quality by using a flatbed scanner, and further limit the quality by viewing the result on a computer monitor.
But people continue to ignore the physical fact that the image quality is not only determined by the input, but mainly by the whole imaging chain.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[RattyMouse]

Frozen film? That won't be shot?

...SOS...please...send...film...SOS...

I have lots of Astia 220 and Provia in my freezer. WHen the scans look right I just LOVE this film. But it takes a herculean effort so it sits frozen.

 

[RattyMouse]

Besides that I have to totally disagree concerning scanning from my own experience (Diapositivo's and Berri's statements are spot on),

For me the statements are NOT spot on because the results do not please me. The colors are ugly, dull, and lifeless. Very very unrealistic. That's why I stopped shooting E6 film.

And to be ironic, I AM a backer to Ferrania's kickstart effort.

 

[Henning Serger]

I was very hesitant when I wrote that, because I knew it was going to prove highly contentious! What you say is certainly true. I was debating with myself whether I should say "significantly more expensive" or "often as much as double the price", etc. etc. But I kept coming back to my own experience in trying to find the most affordable film. As elsewhere, Precisa is by far the cheapest slide film over here - about two thirds the price of Provia or Velvia. In that respect, it's good value and all that I've been shooting in 35mm for quite a while now.

Dear Anton,

no problem, I can completely understand your thoughts.
But I think we definitely must expand our view: Price is only one part. More important is, what you get for that price.
And with reversal film you get significantly more for your money. Therefore a higher price is principally justified.
What do you get more:
1. The latest reversal film generation (Provia 100F, AgfaPhoto CT Precisa 100, Velvia 50, Velvia 100, Velvia 100F, Sensia III, Astia 100F, Provia 400X, Ektachrome E100G(X), Elitechrome 100) delivers better resolution, sharpness and finer grain compared to the latest colour negative film generation from Kodak and Fujifilm. I've done hundreds of differents tests over the last years in my optical test lab, tested all these films again and again in different test conditions, and always got the same results. I discussed my results with several other very experienced experts, and they have got also the same results.

2. You get by far the best versatility with reversal film:
- you can just hold it against the light to enjoy it
- you can look at it through a slide viewer
- you can use a light-box and an excellent slide loupe (outstanding, unsurpassed quality, see my post above)
- you can project them (outstanding, unsurpassed quality at lowest costs for big enlargements)
- you can make optical enlargements on BW direct positive paper
- you can make optical enlargements on reversal-processd RA-4 paper
- you can make optical enlargements via internegatives on RA-4 paper
- you can scan them and make prints (inkjet or RA-4 silver-halide prints); the RA-4 prints from slides I have via good scanners (e.g. Noritsu HS-1800, and especially from drum scanners) are often significantly better than prints from negative film. For certain print applications I have therefore switched to reversal film.

With negative film you are limited to prints and / or scans. Much less versatility and flexibility.

These have also been the reasons why reversal film has been the dominating medium in professional photography for decades.

That's one of the biggest appeals of colour slide film. But only really if your ultimate goal is to project the slides - an experience I really hope the younger generation will discover! In most cases, though, I suspect scans will be made. Which, to my mind, almost negates the point of shooting slides in the first place.

I completely agree concerning projection. It is just a league of its own!
But concerning scanning you also have advantages with reversal film:
- As you have your original slide, you always have a perfect orientation for the scan, because you can compare and know how the scan must look.
That is impossible with colour negative film.
- Most CCD scanners suffer more or less from emphazising grain by scanner noise (drumscanners don't have that problem). The finer grain of reversal film is an advantage, the effect of the coarser, scanner-generated noise-grain is less visible.

As far as I can tell from other posts, finding good E6 processing is a major problem in many parts of the world.

That is a problem that can be quite easily solved. Labs which so far offer only C41 and BW can quite easily add E6 to their programme. E6 developing machines are available both new and used / refurbished (like new). There are at least three E6 chemical manufacturers (Fuji Hunt, Tetenal, Bellini; Maybe CPAC also).
I know several labs which recently just added E6 service.
For example when I visited Singapore the outstanding enthusiasts of "Analogfilmlab" http://www.analogfilmlab.com/ just implemented their brand new (built for them) dip-and-dunk E6 processor. I visited them when they installed their new machine.
There are lots of business opportunities for clever labs with E6 in the future. Especially if these labs combine their service with very good E6 marketing.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Henning Serger]

For me the statements are NOT spot on because the results do not please me. The colors are ugly, dull, and lifeless. Very very unrealistic. That's why I stopped shooting E6 film.

That is definitely not a general E6 problem, but a problem of your lab or your scanner / scanning techniques. As you said you love E6 when the scans are good, just use a better lab. There are enough of them in The US. For example AgX Imaging: http://www.agximaging.com/

Or even better and much cheaper: Light-box and a very good slide loupe or projection.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Diapositivo]

My experience is the exact opposite. I find scanning slides almost impossible. The color accuracy is simply abysmal and no amount of adjustments make it right. It is so bad that I have stopped shooting E6 film, despite having many many rolls in my freezer.

Don't worry. Soon we will discuss hybrid methods in this forum, and the scans of your slides will sing!

 

[Diapositivo]

We are are living in a crazy, marketing brain-washed world: People spending thousands of dollars for a 24, 36, 50 MP cam. And in 99,5% of the time they are only viewing their pictures on a 2k or 4k computer monitor which destroy the resolution and limit it to the extremely low 2 MP / 8 MP the monitor can show at max..
Same for those who rave about medium format or large format quality, but then in a first step destroy that quality by using a flatbed scanner, and further limit the quality by viewing the result on a computer monitor.
But people continue to ignore the physical fact that the image quality is not only determined by the input, but mainly by the whole imaging chain.

How much wisdom in a few sentences!
Not just I wholly agree, but do think that the "slide revival" passes through the resurgence of light tables and slide projectors, even though scans of slides have their own advantages vs digital (not to be debated here).

That is something that has to do with the entire "ecosystem" of slide film to be viable for Ferrania to be a successful enterprise.
The new re-entry of Kodak in this space will make easier that an interest for slide projection (or slide viewing on a light table) re-emerges.
This is key to the success of slide film. The "culture" of slide film must be revived, not only the film consumption in itself.
Kodak re-entry in this space is good news for Ferrania, it will revive the entire market IMHO.

 

[Cholentpot]

Don't worry. Soon we will discuss hybrid methods in this forum, and the scans of your slides will sing!

Digital SLRs are great!...for scanning film.