Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania

[Xmas]

... and not only the film is expensive but the processing as well.

I think that if Ferrania brings out an E6 film that has the same price as color negative emulsions, or the same price as a premium B&W film like Delta 100, that will be enough to be the catalyst to make amateurs and artists switch en masse. I would!! Right now, a roll of Provia 100F 120, processed, costs me $25.86 USD!

Dream on.
Kodachrome or E6 were never cheaper.
These posts are a litany of what people would like.
Life is more like the pied piper.

 

[Xmas]

If Ferrania can make a maskless negative film, that would be great, makes it much easier to scan, especially if RA4 becomes obsolete. All our photolabs print digitally now, so dont see much sense in the orange mask these days.

My scanner is the cheapest available but has no problems with masked c41.

 

[Nzoomed]

My scanner is the cheapest available but has no problems with masked c41.

Its not so much an issue of scanning, but rather having to correct the colour and remove the mask once scanned.

 

[Nzoomed]

Dream on.
Kodachrome or E6 were never cheaper.
These posts are a litany of what people would like.
Life is more like the pied piper.

Im happy with the price of E6, providing i buy it online, the cheapest E6 film our local shops sell is about $20 for velvia 100 and provia 400x was $40 per roll! In saying that, even portra costs around $20 here from local retailers.
Buying online from overseas costs me not much more than $10NZD per roll, wittnerchrome is even cheaper.

 

[Xmas]

Its not so much an issue of scanning, but rather having to correct the colour and remove the mask once scanned.

The scanner software I use strips out the mask automatically but leaves a white balance button option.

Most c41 is ok with default settings and no white balance!

Not tried a cross processed E6 yet.

Don't have photoshop or similar.

When I scan I say neg or positive and make a straight gilee print for proof no correction for E6 or c41 though the Kchrome25s from 40 years ago look best.

The mask reduces dye errors a bit but colours are never real.

 

[Nzoomed]

The scanner software I use strips out the mask automatically but leaves a white balance button option.

Most c41 is ok with default settings and no white balance!

Not tried a cross processed E6 yet.

Don't have photoshop or similar.

When I scan I say neg or positive and make a straight gilee print for proof no correction for E6 or c41 though the Kchrome25s from 40 years ago look best.

The mask reduces dye errors a bit but colours are never real.

ok, thats good if it can, but i understand that the mask can vary between films etc.
I havnt got a scanner yet, but ive been reading lots of tutorials on changing the colour balance by tweaking the yellow and cyan percentages in photoshop etc.

 

[Xmas]

ok, thats good if it can, but i understand that the mask can vary between films etc.
I havnt got a scanner yet, but ive been reading lots of tutorials on changing the colour balance by tweaking the yellow and cyan percentages in photoshop etc.

well yes with a basic filter drawer enlarger and paper like cibachrome you could make do with a two dimensional (colour) step wedge over a grey card area, process print, pick a matching grey and populate the filter tray for that shot or whole film.

The difficult bit was picking the matching square!

But the scanners default mask removal is close cept for agfa vista, and the auto white button fixes that

I had a bride ask why I could not white balance on her dress the answer was I needed a mid tone her dress might be too light and burn.

Brides never liked the colours but normally wept when they watched the slides projected in new living room.

 

[flavio81]

Dream on.
Kodachrome or E6 were never cheaper.
These posts are a litany of what people would like.
Life is more like the pied piper.

I don't understand your post.

Kodak or Fuji E6 roll plus processing used to cost me USD $13 here, 10 years ago.

Now it's about $26.

E6 roll prices have risen 100% in my city ib that time period. And 10 years ago i could buy films like Tura Chrome 100 which costed half than Provia back then.

Then, thus, i used to shoot exclusively slides. Now i don't because of price, which explains my post and hopes of a more reasonably priced film.

Also consider that today Fuji has a virtual monopoly on E6 films...

 

[Xmas]

Id suggest more than 50% of film factory price is wages and salaries and as volume goes down the overheads of wages and salaries increase as a %.

The resellers will mark up more as volume decreased for risks of expired stock.

So Id not find a 100% increase in Fuji over the decade exceptional.

The cheap Agfa Vista c41 with 'made in Ja' implies dumping, from over production.

The only real hope of cheaper Ferranni is they reduce the middle man costs and factory staff. They have a lot of investments to get additional film types after the 100ISO production runs start. They need to break even soon rather than eventually.

Their price point controls volume which may be too low anyways.

The Fotokemia film was very cheap but they closed cause they were not making enough profit.

 

[Roger Cole]

E6 film has always cost a bit more than print film, though not as much as now.

But I remember when it was a LOT cheaper to have processed. It cost only barely more than basic C41 developing without prints. It was the prints that added cost.

Of course if you scan you may not want the prints from C41, and that makes it even cheaper these days. Likewise I used to have the local mini-lab develop my C-41 when I did RA4 printing because it was so cheap it wasn't worth my time and trouble. They did a better job, or at least as good, than I could, much quicker and less bother, for very little more money. Those days are long gone for most of us.

 

[kraker]

Wow - I guess I'm luck in Japan where it costs about $7 a roll to process (sleeve, no mounts).

Same luck here, about EUR 3 per roll. Developing C-41 or E-6, all the same price, all readily available. Guess we're lucky.

 

[MattKing]

$9.50 CDN sleeved, no mounts here.

 

[cmacd123]

You could also use kodak vision motion picture film, since its a negative print for cinema use in a projector.
Again, it can be processed in C41 just like cinestill film is.
In fact Cinestill would be the best people to approach about doing this, as they can remove the remjet backing etc.

Actually, if you read the Current data sheet for 2383/3383 you will note that it no longer uses REMJET as removing it took an extra wash step, and with one of the two major labs (at the time) being in LA where Water is hard to get dropping the wash step was needed. (The other lab since closed was north of Montreal)

You would have to do some testing to see if C-41 would cut it as the process is the very similar ECP2. Note if you read the Kodak technical details that applicateing the sound track was also phased out - again to skip a wash step. That only required every theatre to change out the sound reader in every projector.

http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/...ns_acrobat_en_motion_products_lab_h12383t.pdf

There is an ANti-halo dye in the emulsion of 2383/3383 that is decolorized in processing, the trick would be if the dye would also decolorize in your C-41 process, the data sheet hints that part of that magic happens in the bleach step, and the bleach steps of teh small c-41 kits are not always the same as ECP2 or ECN2.

Yes your right, the orange mask is just another layer in the emulsion.
If Ferrania can make a maskless negative film, that would be great, makes it much easier to scan, especially if RA4 becomes obsolete. All our photolabs print digitally now, so dont see much sense in the orange mask these days.

The Mask is NOT a LAYER, it is part of the system that allows correct colour reproduction. Ron the PE has explained this many times. Basically there is a coupler which absorbs yellow in a layer where the desired dye adsorbs yellow as well as the colour it is supposed to adsorb. another layer has a red dye where the main colour layer also adsorbs red. n both cases the Yellow and red mars are destroyed in proportion to the creation of the image dye. thus thorough the image, the red and yellow adsorption are strictly based on the nature of the desired image. The orange mask thus is easily dialled out when scanning. if it was not there there would be strange colour casts that could not be corrected easily. it at all.

I know that Ferrania are saving the acetate plant, but for future use, its well known that Cellulose Triacetate breaks down (e.g vinegar syndrome) this is something that is of concern for the archival properties of any film. Only let down with polyester base is that you can get light piping if you load the film in bright light.

There are many properties that Poly film has that need to be considered, it takes on a core set for example, thus the complaints about "curly Film" It will not yield if there is a break, which caused expensive damage at Illford when they were using it and had a mishap. It cannot be spliced with film cement, which is a problem with some motion picture use. The light pipe effect can happen with any level of lighting.

 

[ME Super]

2-4 business day turn-around, 135-36 E-6 is 11 USD, dev and mount. Add $3 if you want scans, $6.75 for push/pull processing. If you're willing to wait 2.5 weeks through the Wal-Mart/Fuji send-out, it's about a dollar cheaper, and you can't get push/pull processing or scans.

 

[MattKing]

If you read Robert Shanebrook's book "Making Kodak Film" you will notice that the ECP emulsions are a lot simpler than C41 emulsions. They can be simpler, because unlike films designed for in-camera exposure, they are only exposed in very controlled conditions, in machines designed for that purpose.

They are also not designed to be particularly long lasting - theatre projection prints typically were expected to wear out quickly and then be returned for recycling.

So existing ECP emulsions would not be a good choice for in-camera, "normal" photography.

 

[RattyMouse]

$9.50 CDN sleeved, no mounts here.

I pay about $4.50 to have a roll of E-6 developed, scanned, and sleeved. Good quality scans too.

 

[StoneNYC]

Actually, if you read the Current data sheet for 2383/3383 you will note that it no longer uses REMJET as removing it took an extra wash step, and with one of the two major labs (at the time) being in LA where Water is hard to get dropping the wash step was needed. (The other lab since closed was north of Montreal)

You would have to do some testing to see if C-41 would cut it as the process is the very similar ECP2. Note if you read the Kodak technical details that applicateing the sound track was also phased out - again to skip a wash step. That only required every theatre to change out the sound reader in every projector.

http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/...ns_acrobat_en_motion_products_lab_h12383t.pdf

There is an ANti-halo dye in the emulsion of 2383/3383 that is decolorized in processing, the trick would be if the dye would also decolorize in your C-41 process, the data sheet hints that part of that magic happens in the bleach step, and the bleach steps of teh small c-41 kits are not always the same as ECP2 or ECN2.



The Mask is NOT a LAYER, it is part of the system that allows correct colour reproduction. Ron the PE has explained this many times. Basically there is a coupler which absorbs yellow in a layer where the desired dye adsorbs yellow as well as the colour it is supposed to adsorb. another layer has a red dye where the main colour layer also adsorbs red. n both cases the Yellow and red mars are destroyed in proportion to the creation of the image dye. thus thorough the image, the red and yellow adsorption are strictly based on the nature of the desired image. The orange mask thus is easily dialled out when scanning. if it was not there there would be strange colour casts that could not be corrected easily. it at all.



There are many properties that Poly film has that need to be considered, it takes on a core set for example, thus the complaints about "curly Film" It will not yield if there is a break, which caused expensive damage at Illford when they were using it and had a mishap. It cannot be spliced with film cement, which is a problem with some motion picture use. The light pipe effect can happen with any level of lighting.

When did this supposed changeover happen?

I had vision film from about a year ago that was just made and it still had RemJet backing.

 

[MattKing]

When did this supposed changeover happen?

I had vision film from about a year ago that was just made and it still had RemJet backing.

The referenced emulsion is the projection print material (ECP), not the camera exposure material (ECN).

 

[StoneNYC]

The referenced emulsion is the projection print material (ECP), not the camera exposure material (ECN).

Ahhh! Thanks!

 

[Nzoomed]

Actually, if you read the Current data sheet for 2383/3383 you will note that it no longer uses REMJET as removing it took an extra wash step, and with one of the two major labs (at the time) being in LA where Water is hard to get dropping the wash step was needed. (The other lab since closed was north of Montreal)

You would have to do some testing to see if C-41 would cut it as the process is the very similar ECP2. Note if you read the Kodak technical details that applicateing the sound track was also phased out - again to skip a wash step. That only required every theatre to change out the sound reader in every projector.

http://www.motion.kodak.com/motion/...ns_acrobat_en_motion_products_lab_h12383t.pdf

There is an ANti-halo dye in the emulsion of 2383/3383 that is decolorized in processing, the trick would be if the dye would also decolorize in your C-41 process, the data sheet hints that part of that magic happens in the bleach step, and the bleach steps of teh small c-41 kits are not always the same as ECP2 or ECN2.

I didnt think that there was a different process for this, i always thought that all kodak vision films were ECN2 films.
Thats interesting to know.

The Mask is NOT a LAYER, it is part of the system that allows correct colour reproduction. Ron the PE has explained this many times. Basically there is a coupler which absorbs yellow in a layer where the desired dye adsorbs yellow as well as the colour it is supposed to adsorb. another layer has a red dye where the main colour layer also adsorbs red. n both cases the Yellow and red mars are destroyed in proportion to the creation of the image dye. thus thorough the image, the red and yellow adsorption are strictly based on the nature of the desired image. The orange mask thus is easily dialled out when scanning. if it was not there there would be strange colour casts that could not be corrected easily. it at all.

Interesting about that, I intially thought it was the colour of the film base itself, but anyway there are maskless C41 films out there such as AGFA aviphot, CN200 which has excellent results without the mask, so shows it can be done.
In fact, i think this film would be the best film for making slides from C41 negatives.

 

[Xmas]

Interesting about that, I intially thought it was the colour of the film base itself, but anyway there are maskless C41 films out there such as AGFA aviphot, CN200 which has excellent results without the mask, so shows it can be done.
In fact, i think this film would be the best film for making slides from C41 negatives.

The mask masks dye imperfections some people have perfect hearing pitch. Some people have very good colour appreciation, brides always could detect colour problems.

The tri pack film is approximate at best...

Yes negative film and negative stock like ECN and ECP is best route to projection. Latest starwars on ECN.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens

 

[StoneNYC]

The mask masks dye imperfections some people have perfect hearing pitch. Some people have very good colour appreciation, brides always could detect colour problems.

The tri pack film is approximate at best...

Yes negative film and negative stock like ECN and ECP is best route to projection. Latest starwars on ECN.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Wars:_The_Force_Awakens

Unfortunately ECP isn't available in 8x10 sheets....

 

[Xmas]

Unfortunately ECP isn't available in 8x10 sheets....

I doubt you have a 8x10 projector?

If instead you wanted it for a film camera it would have the same flare and bleed problems as cine still- I can only use PET film (mono) on total overcast days or with on cam flash.

Unless I want 'lomo' effects.

masked C41 135 shoots will print good on unmasked C41 135 some people will have 1:1 slide dup set ups from past, you would also need an unmask filter and some white balance and cut time in both colour developers to control contrast.

This is what the cine people do in effect.

Won't help Ferranni if we all do/did that.

 

[AgX]

masked C41 135 shoots will print good on unmasked C41 135 some people will have 1:1 slide dup set ups from past, you would also need an unmask filter and some white balance and cut time in both colour developers to control contrast.

What do you mean by "unmask filter"? A mask-orange substitute to be used used during printing?

 

[Xmas]

with a slide dupe setup you would get a complementary to the mask orange colour cast on the print film
Like enlarging un masked c41 and masked c41would need different filter packs.
The slide dupe is like a 1:1 enlarger...
Somewhere I have a 30.5 bulk can for Kodak slide dupe film, circa '77.