Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania (PART 2)

[laser]

Kodak makes ESTAR that is used for sheet films sold by Kodak Alaris. The characteristics of ESTAR, history, the manufacturing process, and many of the films that use ESTAR are described in "Making KODAK Film".


ESTAR is superior to acetate for dimensional stability and most other characteristics.

Kodak's licensing of PET from DuPont who licensed from Imperial resulted in ESTAR Film Base. Kodak greatly improved the process so it was suitable for photographic film use. Estar was first used for Aerial, Graphic Arts , and x-ray film applications. Aerial and graphic needed the dimensional stability. X-ray needed ESTAR's stiffness that allowed reliable roller transport film processing in machine that did not have directly opposable rollers. This allowed precise, defect-free rapid x-ray film processing.

Later other applications adopted ESTAR. EKTACHROME was one of the last conversions from Acetate to ESTAR. The one application that kept acetate for Ektachrome sheet film available was emulsion stripping. Skilled retouchers can remove portions of the combined emulsion layers from acetate and place them on another support to modify images. This technique was common prior the the use of Kodak Premier Image Enhancement Equipment and later Photoshop. The lack of a suitable solvent for ESTAR makes emulsion stripping nearly impossible for ESTAR-based films.

If there are more questions send a message to me.


www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[Sal Santamaura]

Sal, I have no update. Talk to Bob Shanebrook for that.

PE

I sent Bob a PM and he responded in post #3069. Thanks, Bob. Since I've no interest in the emulsion being stripped from my 320TXP and TMY-2 sheets, I'm glad to hear Eastman Kodak is still putting those films' emulsions on ESTAR base of its own manufacture.

 

[Nzoomed]

I think the acetate production lines at ferrania are much smaller scale than Kodaks, which could be an advantage.
It may be possible that Ferrania may be able to supply the stuff to the likes of Kodak and harman and get some extra income from that too.
Im interested to see more of the ferrania acetate plant and the size of their casting wheels etc.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Kodak Premier Image Enhancement Equipment

Working on Premier was where I was given the 'Professor Pixel' nickname.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Dave, as soon as I get to develop the other two rolls I shot (in 1.5-2 weeks I assume) I will share sample shots in case I can see scratches again.
I don't mind them that much, I anyways scan and can repair them in Photoshop, but it might be useful for you guys to investigate. Will come back to you.
Bernhard

More than just useful! Until we have more staff devoted specifically to QA, this is the only way we know. So our team must see these things and understand their source and fix it.

 

[DaveTheWalker]

More than just useful! Until we have more staff devoted specifically to QA, this is the only way we know. So our team must see these things and understand their source and fix it.

I was wondering whether this might be down to grit in the velvet of the cassettes, having been in storage for so long. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure would be to check the leader "tongue", which normally just gets snipped off and thrown away!

 

[FILM Ferrania]

I think the acetate production lines at ferrania are much smaller scale than Kodaks, which could be an advantage.
It may be possible that Ferrania may be able to supply the stuff to the likes of Kodak and harman and get some extra income from that too.
Im interested to see more of the ferrania acetate plant and the size of their casting wheels etc.

One is much smaller (a "pilot" line) and the other is standard Kodak size. There used to be 5 more of the big ones, but saving them was not feasible even with our Kickstarter funding, because of the long-term costs.
Most certainly we hope to provide B2B products and services at some point - this was much of the reasoning behind saving most of the machines we saved.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

I was wondering whether this might be down to grit in the velvet of the cassettes, having been in storage for so long. Unfortunately, the only way to know for sure would be to check the leader "tongue", which normally just gets snipped off and thrown away!

Could be... The repurposed cassettes were thoroughly cleaned before use, but a few could have issues. It's not out of the question. Fortunately, we're nearly done with those and we have fresh ones on order.

 

[aleckurgan]

There is a really big difference between Brands and Manufacturers.
The only truly self-contained, end-to-end manufacturer in the world right now is Fuji. Kodak and Ilford are close, but neither manufactures their own base so that technically rules them out.

The same is true for Foma, they are a film and paper manufacturer, and they use the same source for the base as Ilford and Kodak.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

The same is true for Foma, they are a film and paper manufacturer, and they use the same source for the base as Ilford and Kodak.

True - Foma is almost in the same "club" as Ilford and Kodak. I think they have to buy in a bit more than the other two, but close enough...

 

[Berri]

Does a company actually need to be self contained to be successful? No.
Being self contained doesn't mean anything. Film base will be around even if film photography ends, there won't be any shortage of PET in the foreseeable future.
Kodak film costs less than Fuji's even though Fuji is self contained. Fact.

 

[Diapositivo]

Does a company actually need to be self contained to be successful? No.
Being self contained doesn't mean anything. Film base will be around even if film photography ends, there won't be any shortage of PET in the foreseeable future.
Kodak film costs less than Fuji's even though Fuji is self contained. Fact.

Being self-contained ensures the continued availability of all productive factors in the quantity, cost and quality needed for photographic purposes. Not being so exposes the single producer, and the entire industry, to a general disruption if a single producer, or a couple, go out of business or change their plans regarding what they want to produce.
From what I gather from this forum, PET base is easier to find but acetate is more of a problem.

Being self-contained is not important when there is a thriving "cottage industry" but the photographic industry does not seem to have that kind of structure at the moment. In my opinion the lack of a "cottage industry" makes investments in this area more risky. Self-containment makes the investment in the rest of the business less risky, it takes away the possibility of a business disruption due to an external factor.

Plastic cartridges for 126, 110 formats are probably another area where self-containment would be highly desirable from the point of view of sustainability and risk management.

 

[iandvaag]

Being self contained doesn't mean anything.

I strongly disagree. Diapositivo brought up many of the points that I wanted to. I agree completely that being self contained does not guarantee higher profitability over a firm which is not self contained, but that's not to say there are no benefits. To your point about Kodak being cheaper than Fuji, vertical integration may well decrease profitability, but it may be the critical factor in surviving exogenous shocks in the long run. For example, if the only backing paper supplier decides to stop production, that could simply kill off entire product lines at firms which are unable to produce the paper internally. There are other benefits to vertical integration in terms of quality assurance.

Film base will be around even if film photography ends, there won't be any shortage of PET in the foreseeable future.

I don't think the availability of PET base is as simple as you claim. Just because there are a lot of PET drink bottles produced doesn't mean that you can infer that PET film base of the appropriate thickness, length, anti-light piping addenda, lack of imperfections, subbed with corona discharge, etc, etc, will perpetually be available to film manufacturers at a price point which enables them to maintain profitability. I don't actually know, maybe you are correct and suitable PET film will always be available at an acceptable price point, I just don't know how you can state this with such confidence.

 

[Prest_400]

This talk has me reminding of vertical integration theories in business, of which I have forgotten a sizeable part.

A material that has shown to be problematic is backing paper too; of which there was a reduced supplier channel, and on top of that, Kodak's issue with inks. Hope things may go smoothly when 120 enters the game. 220 was shown to be unsustainable with the reduced production+demand and the need of leader and trailer paper.
As of PET, there were a few disadvantages such as piping, splicing difficulties and resistance to tears that for stills may not be relevant and it is suprising that it wasn't more widely adopted.

 

[Nzoomed]

One is much smaller (a "pilot" line) and the other is standard Kodak size. There used to be 5 more of the big ones, but saving them was not feasible even with our Kickstarter funding, because of the long-term costs.
Most certainly we hope to provide B2B products and services at some point - this was much of the reasoning behind saving most of the machines we saved.

OK, that sounds good. One production line of Kodak size would be plenty for your needs I would imagine.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

A material that has shown to be problematic is backing paper too; of which there was a reduced supplier channel, and on top of that, Kodak's issue with inks. Hope things may go smoothly when 120 enters the game. 220 was shown to be unsustainable with the reduced production+demand and the need of leader and trailer paper.

Backing paper for 120/220 is certainly a big problem. The market collapse has created a virtual monopoly. We saved a paper line from the old buildings on the outside chance we can convert it to making backing paper at some point...

 

[FILM Ferrania]

OK, that sounds good. One production line of Kodak size would be plenty for your needs I would imagine.

In fact, the pilot line alone can produce everything we would need for a number of years into the future...

 

[Prest_400]

Backing paper for 120/220 is certainly a big problem. The market collapse has created a virtual monopoly. We saved a paper line from the old buildings on the outside chance we can convert it to making backing paper at some point...

Interesting. There's certainly a lot of machinery that is interesting, good think they seemed to mothball the stuff around the factory.
I guess Ferrania didn't make 120 for a long time and don't know whether they made photographic paper. A jumbo of leftover backing paper would have been useful. Curious, who'd say that a product invented millenia ago (paper!) would be so problematic in a product that is much more complex (film).

 

[Nzoomed]

Backing paper for 120/220 is certainly a big problem. The market collapse has created a virtual monopoly. We saved a paper line from the old buildings on the outside chance we can convert it to making backing paper at some point...

This sounds great. This could potentially be something that you could supply to third parties in the future.

 

[fdonadio]

Just got my P30 in the mail! I think I was in the last batch or so.

Now I just need to find great opportunities to shoot with it.

 

[cmacd123]

I
I guess Ferrania didn't make 120 for a long time and don't know whether they made photographic paper.

Ferrania was one of the last makers of BOTH 126 and 110, which have backing paper, also one of the pictures in Kickstarter showed a 120 packing machine with 120 spools still in the feed hopper. when they were part of 3M, the paper may well have come from another 3M division.

Winder if any of the Private label clients asked for 120 to go along with the other sizes.

As far as paper, Ferrania papers do show up from time to time on e-bay, and one of the lanes in the Big Boy machine was set up for paper. I would guess that 3M would have had Ferrania make the 3M paper that the 3M photofinishing divison used.

 

[FILM Ferrania]

Interesting. There's certainly a lot of machinery that is interesting, good think they seemed to mothball the stuff around the factory.
I guess Ferrania didn't make 120 for a long time and don't know whether they made photographic paper. A jumbo of leftover backing paper would have been useful. Curious, who'd say that a product invented millenia ago (paper!) would be so problematic in a product that is much more complex (film).

Unfortunately, there was no viable backing paper by the time our founders first visited the campus. Most that was left at the closing of the factory was sold off. What remained was unusable.

Backing paper isn't just paper, and that's where it gets complicated. It's a special kind of paper with a specific thickness, tensile strength, friction, etc. Plus it needs a coating on one side and printing on the other side... One would think that if you can source the paper and coat it, any printer could print the frame numbers on the other side, but evidently, that's not so simple either...

Fortunately, we don't have to solve this problem immediately. There are a couple of different partners we can work with to either buy-in the backing paper, or to send the film out for finishing. It drives up our costs and takes time, but it's ok for the short term...

 

[faberryman]

Fortunately, we don't have to solve this problem immediately. There are a couple of different partners we can work with to either buy-in the backing paper, or to send the film out for finishing. It drives up our costs and takes time, but it's ok for the short term...

Hopefully you'll have better luck than Kodak finding a partner. Kodak has been looking for one for going on two years.

 

[fdonadio]

One would think that if you can source the paper and coat it, any printer could print the frame numbers on the other side, but evidently, that's not so simple either...

My guess is that, maybe, any offset printer can do the job, only the ink has a very specific formulation.

 

[cmacd123]

My guess is that, maybe, any offset printer can do the job, only the ink has a very specific formulation.

If that was the case - Kodak would not have been caught with their problem batch of TMax 100.

Get a copy of "Making Kodak Film", I think their are 4 pages about the way Kodak made and is currently sourcing their paper. Ilford has, or is in the process of brings their paper in house from what I have heard as the supplier they were using is closing down... It gets tricky, I have a Seagull IV TLR, and it only works with Seagull film, normal backing paper is too slippery for the film metering rollers. Seagull had a Very bad batch of backing and no one knows if they will come back. EFKE had several batches near the end with "Wrapper Transfer" - something in the paper would mark the film.

Simon Galley before he retired from Ilford mentioned here on APUG that the cost of the backing paper for one roll of 120 HP5 was greater than the manufacturing cost of the film itself.