The old Scotch Chrome 100 data sheet is here: Dead Link Removed
Once we make the actual film and test it properly in lab and real world situations, we will of course publish all relevant info in our own data sheets.
Until then, you can assume that the new film will be somewhat similar to what you see in the old data sheet.
Will there be any attempt at improvement? Those times are worse than FOMA, my long exposures are usually 10 minutes-1hour long before reciprocity is taken into account. That would mean a 1 hour long exposure could be sent to 5-6 hours which then pushes you into failure as the sun is coming up the next day.
Just something to consider, I know you have a lot on your plate.
The last time I looked Forma did not do E6.
After Fuji and Kodak stop you may have Hobson's choice, eg - Ferranni or Agfa.
The faster films should be better?
Have Ferranni committed to 4x5, ... etc.,16x20 these normally needs a different base?
Ferranni may have to low a volume in E6 to rework emulsions, need a crystal ball until '16.
The old Scotch Chrome 100 data sheet is here: Dead Link Removed
Once we make the actual film and test it properly in lab and real world situations, we will of course publish all relevant info in our own data sheets.
Until then, you can assume that the new film will be somewhat similar to what you see in the old data sheet.
It's something that should be acknowledged even before the project started. Ferrania didn't have the R&D and tech that Kodak or Fuji have, having both put a huge amount of resources while fighting for the top. While not technically top, I think Ferrania will come up with a nice, classic Slide film.+1
The Ferrania people is heroically working hard to bring up their E6 film and we are already demanding all kind of stuff from them. LOL.
As long as the E6 ISO 100 film is cheaper than Provia 100F, and has nice colors, i'll be very happy.
+1
The Ferrania people is heroically working hard to bring up their E6 film and we are already demanding all kind of stuff from them. LOL.
As long as the E6 ISO 100 film is cheaper than Provia 100F, and has nice colors, i'll be very happy.
I see Scotch Chrome 100 had nice colors. Random example:
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/dropletcafe/8133453445/
The Ferrania people is heroically working hard to bring up their E6 film and we are already demanding all kind of stuff from them. LOL.
Ferrania didn't have the R&D and tech that Kodak or Fuji have
(...) the 3M team that ran the show for 35 years did copious amounts of research on TONS of products that the top brass refused to put into the market. (...) I have been given just a tiny taste of some of the items in our archives. (...)There is some truly exciting stuff in the vaults...
And I mean, hey, they worked for 3M - certainly no slouches when it comes to researching new things.
Thanks Flavio.
As I've mentioned before, we must approach things one step at a time. We must first please most of the people most of the time, especially in these earliest stages. And the truth is that most people who shoot film these days don't care to know much about the technical aspects as long as the film is consistent and delivers beautiful results.
I have been given just a tiny taste of some of the items in our archives. These are all things that will need further research, of course, but the hard parts are largely done. There is some truly exciting stuff in the vaults...
I am personally most excited about the vault of unknown emulsions. I can see part of films future lying in these unique formulas as digital becomes more and more "Perfect"
Have to second that, I was thinking in terms of the 2000 decade when sadly the old Ferrania drifted into darkness. And how the full potential of Ferrania's R&D wasn't seen when lots of this didn't reach the public.While this is largely true, the 3M team that ran the show for 35 years did copious amounts of research on TONS of products that the top brass refused to put into the market. And I mean, hey, they worked for 3M - certainly no slouches when it comes to researching new things.
I have been given just a tiny taste of some of the items in our archives. These are all things that will need further research, of course, but the hard parts are largely done. There is some truly exciting stuff in the vaults...
Nice! I am quite young and didn't get to try their film, and it was rather obscure, not mentioned around. Lomo 100CN is still Ferrania? Thought they switched over to another manufacturer after they closed shop a few years ago.Here are some reviews of Scotch materials in 1990 by PopPhoto. Click to expand the pictures.
ScotchChrome 400: They find it the most saturated of the 400 E6 films
Color stability test -- best ISO 100 print film regarding color Stability was from 3M, better than Kodak or Fuji's offerings.
Well said, Ken. We must approach this thing one step at a time and we already have a steep hill to climb just to begin regular small-batch production - along with establishing logistics, marketing, sales, distribution, fulfillment, customer service, etc.
We are wide-eyed with ambition, and yet very aware of the hard facts of reality.
With that said, I do not mind all the requests and speculations and commentary (although I hope you'll forgive me for not answering every single post). In fact, we need this kind of granular input for the long term. A market of one today could be a market in the thousands in a few years - especially if we are able to reverse the negativity and hopelessness in the analog world and attract some new blood. Or at least get some fence-sitters to play on our side of the yard.
Here are some reviews of Scotch materials in 1990 by PopPhoto. Click to expand the pictures.
ScotchChrome 400: They find it the most saturated of the 400 E6 films.
View attachment 97309
View attachment 97310
Color stability test -- best ISO 100 print film regarding color Stability was from 3M, better than Kodak or Fuji's offerings.
View attachment 97311
ScotchChrome 640T was well received as well and compared favorably to Kodak 160T (pushed). They liked the colors, the pushability, and the fact that detail was still mantained. But i can't find the magazine pages. Of course, later Kodak counterattacked with 320T and at ISO 640 the latter was a better film overall.
Now, i'm holding in my hand some contact prints i just picked from the lab. The subject are some family portraits made last saturday and sunday. I used a RB67 and a Mamiya C330, films were Portra 400 and Lomography CN100 respectively, both 120 format. I'm looking at the contact prints, judging just color and tonality, not grain nor sharpness, because i don't have the loupe at hand. Prints are done on the same type of paper by the same lab.
Kodak Portra 400, as we all know, is perhaps the best ISO 400 color negative film, ever. The results are just great, excellent skin tones, contrast, saturation, everything.
But the Lomography CN100, which you should know is no other film than Ferrania Solaris ISO 100, shows excellent skin tones, color saturation and contrast as well. It looks just as good as Portra, in these criteria. Side to side with the Portra contact sheet, the only difference i can see is that the Ferrania film looks more natural (less "pop" or extra saturation and contrast) compared to Portra, which looks just a little bit more contrasty and saturated. Both "looks" are great. In fact, i'd prefer the Solaris result more for portraits. It has just the "right" amount of contrast and saturation.
My Solaris rolls include a indoor portrait -using available light- of my girlfriend, with a sunlit window on her back. The results are great. Same for outdoor pictures -- her skin tones are just fine. The roll also includes two shots done at night at a friend's house, artificial (warm white fluorescent) lighting, which i underexposed on purpose due to the conditions, and i see the latitude of the film is good enough as well, with good shadow detail, no doubt helped by the "normal contrast" response.
All in all, it's a film i could use anytime with confidence whenever i want an ISO 100 color negative film. Even more if Ferrania manufactures it again at a good price. I'm off to the lab to order some enlargements today.
While this is largely true, the 3M team that ran the show for 35 years did copious amounts of research on TONS of products that the top brass refused to put into the market. And I mean, hey, they worked for 3M - certainly no slouches when it comes to researching new things.
I have been given just a tiny taste of some of the items in our archives. These are all things that will need further research, of course, but the hard parts are largely done. There is some truly exciting stuff in the vaults...
Since you guys will have a very flexible production line, is it possible to contract with other film producers? The reason I ask is, obviously at some point the large scale of someone like Fuji will make it almost impossible for them to continue their line of E-6, but would it benefit you guys to also have contracts from someone like them to produce smaller batches of their film? Similar to how Ilford produce batches of other manufactures black-and-white films? And the bigger question, does your machine have the capabilities to do that if you were to approach fuji about such a proposal? (Or the other way around).
Thanks.
Would love to hear what the Ferrania guys have for an answer to this question.
Here are some reviews of Scotch materials in 1990 by PopPhoto. Click to expand the pictures.
ScotchChrome 400: They find it the most saturated of the 400 E6 films.
View attachment 97309
View attachment 97310
Color stability test -- best ISO 100 print film regarding color Stability was from 3M, better than Kodak or Fuji's offerings.
View attachment 97311
ScotchChrome 640T was well received as well and compared favorably to Kodak 160T (pushed). They liked the colors, the pushability, and the fact that detail was still mantained. But i can't find the magazine pages. Of course, later Kodak counterattacked with 320T and at ISO 640 the latter was a better film overall.
Now, i'm holding in my hand some contact prints i just picked from the lab. The subject are some family portraits made last saturday and sunday. I used a RB67 and a Mamiya C330, films were Portra 400 and Lomography CN100 respectively, both 120 format. I'm looking at the contact prints, judging just color and tonality, not grain nor sharpness, because i don't have the loupe at hand. Prints are done on the same type of paper by the same lab.
Kodak Portra 400, as we all know, is perhaps the best ISO 400 color negative film, ever. The results are just great, excellent skin tones, contrast, saturation, everything.
But the Lomography CN100, which you should know is no other film than Ferrania Solaris ISO 100, shows excellent skin tones, color saturation and contrast as well. It looks just as good as Portra, in these criteria. Side to side with the Portra contact sheet, the only difference i can see is that the Ferrania film looks more natural (less "pop" or extra saturation and contrast) compared to Portra, which looks just a little bit more contrasty and saturated. Both "looks" are great. In fact, i'd prefer the Solaris result more for portraits. It has just the "right" amount of contrast and saturation.
My Solaris rolls include a indoor portrait -using available light- of my girlfriend, with a sunlit window on her back. The results are great. Same for outdoor pictures -- her skin tones are just fine. The roll also includes two shots done at night at a friend's house, artificial (warm white fluorescent) lighting, which i underexposed on purpose due to the conditions, and i see the latitude of the film is good enough as well, with good shadow detail, no doubt helped by the "normal contrast" response.
All in all, it's a film i could use anytime with confidence whenever i want an ISO 100 color negative film. Even more if Ferrania manufactures it again at a good price. I'm off to the lab to order some enlargements today.
It may have just as well been coated at one of the three known coating lines in Germany for example. (not sure if the smallest of those is actually running yet)
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?