Hello APUG from FILM Ferrania

[mooseontheloose]

... 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!

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

I haven't chimed in before but I will say that I am looking forward to trying whatever slide film Ferrania puts out in the near future. I'm lucky that Provia is still readily available here in Japan, but I'm not sure for how much longer. It's good to know that there will be other options out there. And, as others have mentioned, I would really like to see a higher speed emulsion (800 or above would be ideal) available to make up for the shortfall of available films in that range. I know that's a long way off, but one can always be hopeful.

 

[Nehalem501]

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

A nice not too expensive E6 kit with separate bleach and fix would be nice.
The only one available is from Fuji and is quite expensive 100€ for a 5L kit + additional shipping cost.
Tetenal is quite competitive with a 5L kit around 60~70€ (and that I can find in shops so I don't have shipping costs) but unfortunately it is with BLIX

 

[railwayman3]

Ive got another question for Dave, a little bit off topic, but still relevant to photography.
I dont know if you are aware about Kelvin Kittle's K-lab that has been salvaged in an attempt to process peoples remaining stashes of kodachrome.
If this project comes to fruition, would it be possible to manufacture the dye couplers and/or other chemicals required for him to process the film?
It would probably be a "one off" project to allow those who have kodachrome the chance to shoot what they have left.
Since these dye couplers share similar chemical compositions found in films, i dont think it would be impossible and all the chemical compositions are documented.

We would be able to start a kick starter to help fund the costs for you to produce the chemistry.
There is a film maker who hasnt been able to finish his space shuttle film because he didnt get all the films developed in time, so there would be a demand for Kodachrome processing if the chemistry can be made available.

Just a future thought anyway, Im not expecting to hear a yes, and i wouldnt expect you to do this while you are busy on other projects and getting your production up and running at the moment.

TBH, I think that the synthesis of the chemicals (by a competent organic chemist) would be the least of the problems in recommissioning the K-lab.

We have heard nothing from Kelvin Kittle for a considerable time, and, even if the lab still exists, I believe it was recovered from an outdoor junk-yard. It would presumably take a lot of skilled work (particularly also remembering it's computer-controlled) to get into working condition, not to mention the set-up and testing. (Even the routine operation and maintenance required by a regularly operating machine, as shown by the Kodak Operators Manual, is frighteningly complicated!).

And, given that all remaining supplies of Kodachrome are at least 4 years outdated, and inevitably can only continue to deteriorate, I think than we must accept that an operating K-lab is now just a dream.

 

[Nzoomed]

TBH, I think that the synthesis of the chemicals (by a competent organic chemist) would be the least of the problems in recommissioning the K-lab.

We have heard nothing from Kelvin Kittle for a considerable time, and, even if the lab still exists, I believe it was recovered from an outdoor junk-yard. It would presumably take a lot of skilled work (particularly also remembering it's computer-controlled) to get into working condition, not to mention the set-up and testing. (Even the routine operation and maintenance required by a regularly operating machine, as shown by the Kodak Operators Manual, is frighteningly complicated!).

And, given that all remaining supplies of Kodachrome are at least 4 years outdated, and inevitably can only continue to deteriorate, I think than we must accept that an operating K-lab is now just a dream.

Most people keep their kodachrome in the freezer, and besides ive shot old kodachrome super8 that was long expired and not cold stored, and it shot fine, perhaps a little faded on one of the real old rolls from the 70's but this is not an issue.
Remember how Dwaynes received thousands of rolls from a railway photographer that had been unprocessed for many years?

I dont think the chemicals are too difficult to source, and i think its entirely feasible to get the k-lab working.
I have enough computer and electronics knowledge to help, but i live on the other side of the world. Im sure there are others there who can help get it working.
Hopefully we will hear from him again, last i heard, he was working on building his home (and presumably the room for the k-lab lol)

 

[FILM Ferrania]

would it be possible to manufacture the dye couplers and/or other chemicals required for him to process the film?

Another question without a clear answer. Once things die down a bit in the factory, I would be glad to pass them any sort of information about the requirements for the necessary chemistry. Does this info exist online somewhere? (But for now, I'd rather not bother them with such things...)

 

[Dr Croubie]

I would be glad to pass them any sort of information about the requirements for the necessary chemistry. Does this info exist online somewhere?

Well, it certainly exists in Ron's head, best crack open that juicy coconut while you can...

I would also love to see more players enter the E6 chemicals market, because there's only really Tetenal (3-bath only), and Fujihunt 6X (which is 6-bath, but only comes in 5L, isn't available from Fuji Aus, and can't be posted because it's too big).
Of course Ferrania can bring out their own E6 kits, but there's just too much R&D needed for things like stability, longevity, accuracy, and not to mention following all the restrictions for every country in the world.
And they don't really have a base to start from like with ScotchChrome, do they? (Obviously you guys have to develop your films you shoot for R&D, I'd be interested to know what chemicals you use now?)

Being realistic, I think the best thing that Ferrania can do is to lean on Tetenal to bring out a 6-bath kit in a size that can be posted. Or on (whoever makes) Rollei to bring out a Digibase kit for E6 (their Digibase C41 kit is apparently better than Tetenal's).
Given Ferrania's committment to E6, that's a good business case for them to invest in the R&D, as there's now a (hopefully) guaranteed supplier and market for them.

 

[railwayman3]

Most people keep their kodachrome in the freezer, and besides ive shot old kodachrome super8 that was long expired and not cold stored, and it shot fine, perhaps a little faded on one of the real old rolls from the 70's but this is not an issue.
Remember how Dwaynes received thousands of rolls from a railway photographer that had been unprocessed for many years?

I dont think the chemicals are too difficult to source, and i think its entirely feasible to get the k-lab working.
I have enough computer and electronics knowledge to help, but i live on the other side of the world. Im sure there are others there who can help get it working.
Hopefully we will hear from him again, last i heard, he was working on building his home (and presumably the room for the k-lab lol)

Don't misunderstand me, I would love to see the K-lab working. And, like you, I have a few rolls in the freezer, and, back in 2010, I used some 20-year outdated K64 with perfect results.

But even the Operator's Manual for the K-lab is 200+ pages long, there are no exact formulae for chemicals (the packs were supplied pre-mixed by Kodak), and a significant minimum daily throughput is needed to keep the process in balance (you can't just put the odd single film through). It would probably need several hundred feet of film just to get it working and tested, and Kodak test strips (now unavailable) are needed to set the daily colour balance.

And, if the results are not equal to the standard which we expected from Dwaynes, and previously the big Kodak factory machines, it wouldn't be the Kodachrome we knew. The only purpose would seem to be to process any exposed film of unique and unrepeatable material, of which I've only heard of the legendary Space Shuttle documentary film. The end of processing was well publicised and I'm sure that 99% of people with any exposed film of value(like the railway photographer)
will have cleared this back in 2010.

Not trying to be negative, just realistic.

 

[Roger Cole]

It's true E6 costs a bit and I'd like to see it less, but it's not THAT much more. Currently at B&H:

Portra 160:

35mm - 6.99
120 - 5.50

Provia 100F:

35mm - 10.51
12 - 7.19

Agfa Precisa is $9.95, not worth the tiny difference from the Provia labeled version but available cheaper off eBay, at least the last time I looked and bought some.

Processing prices get weird for C41 120 because of the different frame counts and dimensions. Dwayne's at least has an assortment of prices from $4.99 for 8-12 square frames printed to 4x4 prints (which are really tiny) to $8.99 for 10-16 frames printed 5x7. To keep it simple and compare 35mm:

C41, $6.99 + $8.95 (5x7 prints) = $15.94. 4x6 prints bring that down to $13.98
E6, $10.51 + $8.95 = $19.46

It's more, but it's not hugely more. I realize this differs in other places and E6 is pretty insane in Australia.

You can, of course, bring this down a lot by doing your own E6. C41 is even easier but then you have to print. That's also not difficult but takes a LOT more time and does have a lot more learning curve than the rigidly defined C41 and E6 processes.

 

[Nzoomed]

Another question without a clear answer. Once things die down a bit in the factory, I would be glad to pass them any sort of information about the requirements for the necessary chemistry. Does this info exist online somewhere? (But for now, I'd rather not bother them with such things...)

It is scattered online here in APUG and in other various documents, mainly the old kodachrome patents describe most of the chemistry in detail.
Steve Frizza from Australia successfully processed a sample of Kodachrome with similar but NOT identical chemistry, so there are usable chemicals out there, i expect these share similar chemical structure to the dye couplers used in modern E6 films, so would not be much different in manufacture.
Ive been trying to put everything that is available together in a wiki, to help those that want to produce the chemistry.
If your engineers were up to the challenge in the future, im sure we would be able to provide you all the information required.

It would give Film Ferrania a huge amount of publicity if you were able to help a group to achieve the thing that many would consider impossible.

 

[StoneNYC]

Just asking, but isn't Dan the same person who set up the "Kodachrome Project" website around 2009 when the film was announced as discontinued ?

And wasn't part of the project to produce a book of Kodachromes from his work up to Dec 2010 ? His last post, in response to enquiries about the book, was in August 2013, when it was supposedly near publication ? His Blog on 9th November 2013 (the latest Blog posting) says " I have been getting close to getting my book project done…finally. It has been more of an emotional blockade than a production one. The break from it was good but my time is up I gotta go to print."

(If I'm totally wrong, I'll gladly apologise and delete this post.)

I met Dan at Dwayne's photo on the last day. I also did my own mini Kodachrome project, I spent one month traveling the country shooting up 75 rolls of Kodachrome, Dan spent six years shooting thousands upon thousands of rolls of Kodachrome, it's been four years since then and I still haven't gotten through all the slides to choose the ones I want to put into a collection and potentially a small book or series. I can't imagine how difficult it must be for Dan to go through the piles and piles of slides he has for his eventual book. Along with the fact that he is a working photographer shooting every single day printing every single day, making a living and building I name while most of the rest of us sit in front of our computers and talk, Dan certainly ask, but he acts in time and in his own time, which is exactly why his project hasn't come to fruition as a book yet, it's an overwhelming task and I'm sure that he will get to it when he is ready.

I will also say that I will get to it when I'm ready and perhaps some may enjoy my imagery.

On the note about other online networks, I agree to an extent that this is not the end-all and be-all network, but it certainly is a good out reach to potential customers. I would think that once FILMferrania begin production of sheet film, perhaps they might show themselves on the Large Format Photography Forum at least, something I'm surprised that Ilford has not yet done, at least during the ULF annual run.

One thing you can guarantee for sure, if FILMferrania are able to produce 8x10, 5x7, and 4x5 sheet film and especially 11x14 E-6, those fellows at LFPF would surely want to know that it!

In the meantime, I would love to shoot some brand-new FILMferrania E-6!

 

[Dr Croubie]

It's more, but it's not hugely more. I realize this differs in other places and E6 is pretty insane in Australia.

Yeah, we got it bad here. I've never done a direct comparison so may as well now.

CheapshotsAu (generally the cheapest way to get film in this part of the world)
120 propacks:
Ektar $41
Portra 160 $43
Portra 400 $44
Superia $45
Pro400H $55
RVP100, RDPIII 100 $60
RVP50 $64

And 135 propacks:
Ektar $45
Portra 160 $53
Portra 400 $65
Superia 1600 $70
RVP100, RDPIII 100 $84
RVP50 $94 (there's another reason I don't shoot 35mm much anymore)

Processing at Dead Link Removed (1 of 2 E6 labs left within 700km, the only Dip'n'dunk and Kodak Q-Lab left), all dev/sleeve, no mounting or prints:
E6 135-36 $13.60
E6 120 $12.10
C41 135-36 $12.10
C41 120 $10.80
There's another (cheaper) E6 lab here, at least there was last time I used them a year or two ago, and a few other 1-hour Minilabs for C41. But if I'm going to do something, I do it right and send it to Atkins if I'm not going to do it myself.

So all up:
In 35mm, that makes C41 from 58c to 73c per frame, E6 is 85c to 90c per frame.
At 6x6, that makes C41 from $1.60 to $1.80 per frame, and E6 is $2 to $2.10 per frame.
Yes, C41 prints cost more, and so do Slide mounts, but I don't really do either. Atkins do offer a scan/print service, but they charge pretty much the same for E6/C41 (E6 is a tiny bit higher), so that's not going to influence the final price-difference much.
I scan all of mine which costs the same either way (although E6 is a crudload easier to scan), some C41s I do print RA4 but it's a rare occurrence.

But then, price has never been a factor for me, really, in deciding between C41 and E6. I use RVP50 the most for the saturation, or switch to Ektar when there's a huge range of light. Those two make up 90% or so of all my colour. The other 10% is usually in a toy camera where I just buy whatever cheap expired crap I can get off fleabay. Once or twice in the last few years I've used Portra 160 and some Astia in sheets specifically for people.
In B+W I go more on price, eg I can't see much difference (for my eyes and the way I shoot and develop, ymmv) between HP5 and TriX, so I shoot whatever is cheaper on the day (usually HP5). Ditto in 100-speed, I've got bulk-rolls of Rollei Retro, TMX, FP4, because they were bargains at the time.
And mostly in the smaller sizes I'm not shooting for 'keepers' so I don't feel the need to perfectly calibrate every workflow for exactly repeatable results using the same film for 1000 cartridges.

 

[trythis]

Posts are too long for me to study but is there no way to make a clear base c41 emulsion. I have some old c41 transparency film that special purpose. Can't see it at the moment.

Pro lab here is c41 $5
E6 $15.

 

[Roger Cole]

The prices I quoted from Dwayne's for E6 were mounted. Since I project my 35mm slides that's what I want. Those who only scan may not, and they offer unmounted, but at no price savings.

 

[StoneNYC]

Posts are too long for me to study but is there no way to make a clear base c41 emulsion. I have some old c41 transparency film that special purpose. Can't see it at the moment.

Pro lab here is c41 $5
E6 $15.

What? Not sure anything you said was accurate...

You certainly could make a clear C 41 days, it just wouldn't print accurately. also see 41 is not a transparency....

Perhaps you are thinking of ECN2? Or the Movie Print film for projection?

 

[Nzoomed]

Posts are too long for me to study but is there no way to make a clear base c41 emulsion. I have some old c41 transparency film that special purpose. Can't see it at the moment.

Pro lab here is c41 $5
E6 $15.

AGFA do
This is sold as Digibase CN200

 

[cmacd123]

No such thing as Clear base c-41

AGFA do
This is sold as Digibase CN200

Yes A-G Aviphot is a non masked colour negative. Not sure about the base, might be clear, might be gray.

THE ORANGE MASK IN C-41 FILM IS _NOT_ Part of the base!!!!! It is NEEDED to get Good colour rendition and is formed (Selectively) in the processing step.

Perhaps you were thinking of Ektacolor Slide FIlm which also used the C-41 process, was unmasked and on a clear base. It was a low speed film for printing Still Film colour negatives to make slides. It would take some fancy shooting to use that in a camera, as well as a very steady tripod, because II did mention it is SLOW.

 

[Lachlan Young]

Ferrania has a set of goals that look interesting and achievable - I'm looking forward to 800/p3200 in 4x5 sheets. Further down the line, an ISO 25 C41 might be interesting. The pointless Kodachrome nostalgia is silly, better to focus on sensible ways to build a route forward for colour film in the 21st century - not least in the way it is inherently characterful, designed for people & not for computerised scoring of high ISO sensor performance. People will also have to realise that top grade colour film made at a sensible scale is not cheap.

 

[trythis]

Certainly a special purpose film.

I am proposing a c41 slide film. Oxymoron or not. Implausible or not. Just an idea terrible or wonderful.

 

[RattyMouse]

Dan's a good guy. And I would never try to reign in his passion for photography. He is driven in that passion to a degree that can be remarkable. It's just that sometimes his expression of that passion here on APUG can be a bit overwhelming.



Ken

Showing contempt for other people is NOT passion. It is rudeness to the extreme.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

People will also have to realise that top grade colour film made at a sensible scale is not cheap.

This is an extremely important observation. One who ultimate consequences I fear are often lost on many.

From an (there was a url link here which no longer exists) of mine addressing the constant drumbeat of demand for ever cheaper film...

"I think we need to manage our expectations a little at the beginning. There is a tendency to think that the customer is still king and is always still right no matter what. But expecting Ferrania to initially give us better E-6 than Fuji, and/or at a lower price point, and possibly in a gazillion formats, and a new color negative film right away as well, might be asking for the impossible.

"If we hold them to such a standard right out of the gate, they may never reach critical mass and just be forced to throw in the towel. Then what do we do a year later when Fuji shuts down all color film manufacturing?

"Better I think to be a little more patient. And be willing to initially pay what is required to keep them moving forward as a viable long-term option to Fuji. Part of the definition of extinct includes the principle of a very long time.

"I also worry about Adox in this same respect. Everyone wants cheap, cheap, cheap. Mirko has written here on several occasions bemoaning the fact that some of his plans for future films are on hold because no one wants to pay what is required to bring them to market. Sometimes I wonder how long he can keep going as well.

"Be careful what you ask for..."​

There is a tipping point in the world of manufacturing where a product simply cannot be made for less, and the customer absolutely refuses to pay that amount and demands cheaper prices.

What we all need to ponder now and then is how close color photographic film may be to that tipping point in today's painfully contracted market. And what ultimately happens when those lines on the graph cross and the tip over finally occurs.

Ken

 

[ME Super]

Re: manufacturing K-14 chemistry. Ron Mowrey (aka Photo Engineer) is a fount of information for sure. His name is on the patent, after all! He's posted about how one might successfully process K-14 by hand. I think he even put in clues as to which chemicals are needed. They did it at EK, too. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the thread that he's put all this fount of information in. It's here somewhere, though. He even said that there's a way to turn CD-4 into CD-6, which was used for part of the K-14 process.

But back to E-6. I've seen some of the samples of the old Ferrania's Scotch Chrome 100, and it looks pretty good from the scans. Can't wait to try some of the New Ferrania's 100 speed reversal film! Support Ferrania, so they can afford to make the higher speed E-6 too!

 

[Nzoomed]

Re: manufacturing K-14 chemistry. Ron Mowrey (aka Photo Engineer) is a fount of information for sure. His name is on the patent, after all! He's posted about how one might successfully process K-14 by hand. I think he even put in clues as to which chemicals are needed. They did it at EK, too. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the thread that he's put all this fount of information in. It's here somewhere, though. He even said that there's a way to turn CD-4 into CD-6, which was used for part of the K-14 process.

But back to E-6. I've seen some of the samples of the old Ferrania's Scotch Chrome 100, and it looks pretty good from the scans. Can't wait to try some of the New Ferrania's 100 speed reversal film! Support Ferrania, so they can afford to make the higher speed E-6 too!

Yes your right, PE said that the formulas are documented here, but where to look, IDK, it seems impossible to search for anything on this forum.
And yes, i cant find any fault with scotchchrome 100, i liken it very much to E100gx.

 

[Nzoomed]

Certainly a special purpose film.

I am proposing a c41 slide film. Oxymoron or not. Implausible or not. Just an idea terrible or wonderful.

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.

 

[Roger Cole]

I will pay up to, but not more than, the same price as Fuji film, if it's as good or nearly so, or more for something Fuji doesn't make anymore. I paid about $17 a roll for the last Provia 400X I bought and I would continue to pay that for a good 400 speed E6 film, though it's also fair to say I'd buy a lot MORE of it at $10 or so.

 

[Nzoomed]

Yes A-G Aviphot is a non masked colour negative. Not sure about the base, might be clear, might be gray.

THE ORANGE MASK IN C-41 FILM IS _NOT_ Part of the base!!!!! It is NEEDED to get Good colour rendition and is formed (Selectively) in the processing step.

Perhaps you were thinking of Ektacolor Slide FIlm which also used the C-41 process, was unmasked and on a clear base. It was a low speed film for printing Still Film colour negatives to make slides. It would take some fancy shooting to use that in a camera, as well as a very steady tripod, because II did mention it is SLOW.

Yes your right, the orange mask is just another layer in the emulsion.
AGFA Aviphot uses a polyester base and is crystal clear, much better than acetate base.

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.

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.