Is RPL claiming that Portra 160 and Ektar are not archival?

Sperdynamite said:

1. Can we stop with the "who's processed more" pissing match guys? I think my OP is enough for us to discuss, and nobody cares how much of anything you've done.

2. On the subject of C41 archivability... I guess I would simply define it within it's own limitations. If you can expect Portra film to last X years, I would be concerned if they started saying a different X for different stocks within the same family. I don't expect my Portra negatives to be as reliable as a properly processed roll/sheet of B&W film, but I do expect it to last as long as other C41 films.

Click to expand...

I reacted to a public challenge and to my dismay responded here. I have never felt colour negative film is archival thats why I regard it as a temporary intermediate step in my photographic process.

Sperdynamite said:

So, I just talked to a 2nd lab and they actually reported the same problem. The issue is the Digital ICE, so when they have to scan P160 on a Fuji Frontier they turn off ICE and dust by hand.

Click to expand...

ICE ! I would like to say something to ICE !
Before I have to state : I never scan a simple frame I just give the orders to a very nice lab.
So I am absolut no expert for scans but I am wondering since years about :
Wy so many people have problems with
ICE ?
It is an Auto Correction (the best on the market - am I right ? )
AND WHY IS IT USED ? TELL ME WY ?
Yes I can imagine the reason it is depending in concern of digital workflow.
Who want to spend x hours to scan some
simple frames without Autocorrection ?
But isn't it a nice idea?
If you shoot with your camera are you allways in a programm mode?
You never set the exposure manual?
Your Programm decided the use of aperature.
Never I would guess - is it so ?
I am realy the opposite of a scan expert but sometimes this may be from advantage (only sometimes of cause).
The ICE has presets to each films - am I right? Perhaps you got sometimes updates with corrections?
But the whole scanning resolution is a little depending to automatical funktions?
That means the potential quality has a little lost due to software concerns - here the dust and scratch correction.Like as the rendering from a Video scene with special effects there is a lost in quality?
Yes of cause I can also imagine you choice the scanning resolution to a max. by setting the resolution.
But it is with less quality caused from auto correction.With only a very little less
quatity (of cause).
For me an important reason to switch ICE
of because the color trueless is also involved from the software.
AND as you mentioned you are NOT able
to scan correct due to this film and due to this item in regard to emulsions (grain structure a.s.o.) pls. let me tell you :
It is in regard to ICE ....isn't it ?
Ok - as I heard the first time about ICE (1998 ?) I was in a decision of never use a auto function.
And let me tell you If I will buy a scanner in the future (can't afford imacon flextight in the past) I will have a single personal manual setup to each film.
Hopefully it is possibe to switch of ICE.
Yes I know that could mean I will work to
each scan perhaps more than 1 hour .
But never mind - where is the problem on
manual work ????????....

with regards

It is an Auto Correction (the best on the market - am I right ? )

Click to expand...

yes, but not for colors

The ICE has presets to each films

For me an important reason to switch ICE of because the color trueless

Click to expand...

wrong, wrong. maybe do a little googling before posting a screenful of speculations.
ICE is for automatic detection of dust particles from using an infrared illumination. ICE works with most dye-based color films (and, presumably, XP400). Fails with Kodachrome (sharp basrelief edges on film surface) and silver b/w (each silver grain triggers a dust alarm).

bernard_L said:

yes, but not for colors

wrong, wrong. maybe do a little googling before posting a screenful of speculations.
ICE is for automatic detection of dust particles from using an infrared illumination. ICE works with most dye-based color films (and, presumably, XP400). Fails with Kodachrome (sharp basrelief edges on film surface) and silver b/w (each silver grain triggers a dust alarm).

Click to expand...

Yes that is quite clear (ICE automatically decided what has to be dust on your film)

But this is the issue ICE

I'm finally here!

I have been told that Silver cannot be totally removed from any color negative product. I have found about 10 mg / square meter in some products and that is not very much. It will not contribute to "grain". The grain is so fine that some scanners can give the appearance of finer grain. It may be related to ICE.

C41 films are generally more stable than E6 films due to using the latest generation of couplers with the best stability. These films also contain a bleach accelerant which has recently been patented by EK. The latest bleach from EK and Fuji contains stronger bleaching agents.

I conclude from this that it is either a marketing issue or a processing issue. Even if so, it will NOT affect image stability. The retained Silver and the dyes more or less ignore each other.

PE

Photo Engineer said:

I'm finally here!

I have been told that Silver cannot be totally removed from any color negative product. I have found about 10 mg / square meter in some products and that is not very much. It will not contribute to "grain". The grain is so fine that some scanners can give the appearance of finer grain. It may be related to ICE.

C41 films are generally more stable than E6 films due to using the latest generation of couplers with the best stability. These films also contain a bleach accelerant which has recently been patented by EK. The latest bleach from EK and Fuji contains stronger bleaching agents.

I conclude from this that it is either a marketing issue or a processing issue. Even if so, it will NOT affect image stability. The retained Silver and the dyes more or less ignore each other.

PE

Click to expand...

Well - that should answer this question.
In addition from theoratically concert - you mentioned the pore stability of KodakEktar25.
Can we say the less box speed the less amound of color couplers ?
I would like to say but I am not as sure?
An ISO 1600 film need a lot of exposure but this is related within the E.I. ????
So let me ask was the discontinue of Ektar25 caused from "bad couplers" ?

with regards

Sorry oposite direction ISO 1600 need less exposure of cause... ????

ISO 25 need a lot of light and may be there is a less need of couplers and that caused a less stability over the years ?

with regards

Sperdynamite said:

http://www.richardphotolab.com/blog/find-your-film-stock-and-exposure-comparisons

"We rated Kodak Portra 160 at box speed. To Richard's surprise, this film was the most flexible of the color films tested—it looks great at a lot of different exposure settings, even underexposure (if you want a "moody" look)! We recommend scanning this film on the Noritsu. Kodak Portra 160 can produce digital artifacting when scanned on the Frontier due to the silver retention (which can also deteriorate the quality of your stored film negatives, yikes!)."

Silver retention? What are they on about?

Click to expand...

Richard Photo Lab should learn to process the film correctly. Additionally they would not be have a problem scanning if they had not dumped their optical enlargers. This is not rocket science folks.

Sirius Glass said:

Richard Photo Lab should learn to process the film correctly. Additionally they would not be have a problem scanning if they had not dumped their optical enlargers. This is not rocket science folks.

Click to expand...

Dumping optical enlargers is a right thing!

with regards

trendland said:

Well - that should answer this question.
In addition from theoratically concert - you mentioned the pore stability of KodakEktar25.
Can we say the less box speed the less amound of color couplers ?
I would like to say but I am not as sure?
An ISO 1600 film need a lot of exposure but this is related within the E.I. ????
So let me ask was the discontinue of Ektar25 caused from "bad couplers" ?

with regards

Click to expand...

Ektar 25 had a problem with uniformity from batch to batch with respect to keeping. The coupler droplets in some batches would form crystals that magnified the grain. It could get so bad that the surface took on a matte appearance. I first saw this in a large sample from a production coating brought to our offices to show us way back then. It was spotty as well, being non-uniform across the coating web of 42".

The film itself, and the dyes were quite stable.

PE

.....if it is be done from comercial labs. .....
I have loaded a video where is finaly seen
how some photographers restored an
idustrial enlarger 20 x 30 cm !!
The price to it was a simple "handshake".
So labs don't be afraid to take away optical enlargers with nice quality to less. We would possible take your stuff.
Pls. with "Rodenstock" lenses.

with regards

Many thanks PE. that mal es it mich mir clear.
To me it seams so that the aera of ISo25
films comes to an end to that time.
Also with Royale25

with regards

Sorry - smartphone error ( batteries 3% left, complete wrong spelling ) it was not me.......

.........that makes it much more clear. ( unexpected interaction of several compounds within the emulsion )
To me it seams so that the era of ISO 25 films comes to an end to that time. Also regarding Kodak Royale25 ( wich wasn´t a bestselling film )

with friendly greetings PE to you in Rochester..... and ?

Have a good time ...

Bob Carnie said:

Well not to be a braggart but when I worked at Jones and Morris Photo Murals I would personally expose and process over 5 - 100 ft 50 inch wide a day of colour paper RA4. and this would be the norm for months on end on the busy days ...
...
I really doubt that your above claim apply's to me as my paper supply room was a walk in freezer filled to the roof with colour paper, and I did this for over 15 years before I decided to start my one man pony show that I am still running today.

Click to expand...

Hi Bob, yes, you might be the exception, but you would probably still be astounded by the volume we did.

Let's see, if I'm reading you right, you personally did somewhere BETWEEN 5 and 100 feet per day of the 50 inch wide paper? Ok, let's say it was 100 feet of 50 inch wide paper EVERY DAY = a bit over 400 square feet per day. Assuming 5 work days per week x 52 weeks per year = nearly 110,000 square feet per year. If you ran this volume for 15 years, this is about 1.6 million square feet of paper, a pretty astounding amount for a single person to produce, in my opinion.

Now, back to us, which I have been shooting off my mouth about - WE COULD NOT MATCH THIS VOLUME IN ONE DAY. It would have taken us, during our busiest times of the year, running full tilt for two shifts (the third shift was mainly for "clean up" work and testing), it would have taken us FIVE FULL WORK DAYS TO MATCH THIS VOLUME. To be clear, we would have to run run, full tilt from Monday through Friday to match this volume, which for a lot of years we did for a couple months per year.

Now certainly, during those two months, we shipped a lot of (can I say crap?), not intentionally, but because the huge increase in staff - seasonal help - was not that good; plenty of work that should have been reprinted was not. And to be clear, it was a completely different kind of work than what you did - we were essentially an assembly-line picture factory.

Sperdynamite said:

1. Can we stop with the "who's processed more" pissing match guys? I think my OP is enough for us to discuss, and nobody cares how much of anything you've done.

Click to expand...

Well, you might think you don't care, but the significance is in what information do you trust? And how do you know who you should listen to... who has the right answer? You might realize that I'm one of the few who has answered some of your recent questions on a small-scale processing operation. I don't know how you "see" my information, but would your view change if you found out I was a weekend hobbyist? Versus a full-time guy in large labs? Versus a guy who has known the confidential formulations and has worked with regenerating nearly everything with the support of an on-site lab?

I have just gotten a little fed up lately, and in a bit of a foul mood after making a few recent posts that seem to have been largely "dismissed." So I think, am I just wasting my time here? I'll bend over backwards to help someone solve problems, but if no one pays attention, then...why? I've worked on the inside of the industry, but am not really known to the outside world - it's not my thing. But if my advice is not gonna be listened to, well... I have other things to do.

Bill, I sometimes feel the same way you do. To add to this "contest", my budget for color paper was about $5M / year in 1962! Our lab did a lot of color and B&W. And, I have been doing a lot for over 50 years!

PE

I'm glad that Bob Carnie responded, even though he seems dismayed that he reacted. But my guess is that he'll see this post, and say, "Holy cow! That guy wasn't kidding when he said they did a lot of volume."

Regarding volume, here's why it matters: when you are a big enough customer then you can get all the manufacturer support you want. The place where I spent a lot of years went belly up a couple years back (I was gone by then). But if we would've had these scanner issues back then, here's how it would have gone: someone in our operation would have said to me, "Bill, we're having these issues with our Frontier scanners." I would have done a few tests myself, to try and narrow things down; presumably I would have found problems with ICE, and reconfirmed the bleaching and fixing of the film (the QC and chem lab people would have done this for me). Then I would have called our Fuji-Hunt rep, if they didn't have any skinny on I then I would go to the head of Fuji Technical Services in the US. (He most likely wouldn't know, but would request further info from the factory - I might have to supply film samples for them to duplicate the problems.) Preliminary info, with hypothesis would probably be back in one to two days. In the meantime I would ask our chem lab if they could try "super bleaching" the film, perhaps with a ferricyanide bleach? And I'd ask the QC department if they could obtain several "plain Jane" films, shoot test image, then process and do test scans on the film. If the meantime, depending on how big a deal it is, I might go down our local test lab, who have a couple of electron microscopes, and speak to the lab director about what they might be able to look at for us (he says my tests are always "interesting"). I almost forgot to say, I'd also talk to Kodak, through channels (they always liked us to go through the "front door" before communicating inside.

If it turned out to be an intractable problem with retained silver, I'd ask the Fuji guy, can anything be done with the Frontier scanner? Most likely, Fuji would come up with either a firmware or hardware fix (we might have to pay for it, but likely they figure that many other customers have the same issue, so perhaps we only pay for the upgrade kit, not the engineering). If Fuji's business is so slow that it's not worth reengineering, well, I dunno. No one in the company would have interfered, but my bosses would have asked if it's really worth doing. All of these things, I would have been able to do because we did enough volume that it would have been worthwhile from a business standpoint, and we were an important enough customer to get the vendor support. We would absolutely get through to the problem if it was significant enough. This is how the amount of volume can be relevant as to how knowledgeable someone might be.

After a solution is either found, or not found, I might post to Apug something like, "Industry scuttlebutt says there is an issue with certain films, but look here [weblink] for a retrofit kit." I wouldn't pass any confidential information, etc., and on Apug people would think, "oh, that guy just found a weblink." They might even say, "Oh, THE expert here is so and so."

People at Apug should be appreciative of the effort someone else puts in; if in doubt, ask how they know or if they have personal experience, and that sort of thing. (I don't like to take anyone on just their word , unless I personally know them.) I like to see well-reasoned arguments or explanations, or reputable literature. Personal experience is fine too, but report it as what you observed; if you try to interpret the mechanisms then make it clear it is a personal hypothesis. But whatever you do, don't be (too) disrespectful to the other posters.

Photo Engineer said:

Bill, I sometimes feel the same way you do. To add to this "contest", my budget for color paper was about $5M / year in 1962! Our lab did a lot of color and B&W. And, I have been doing a lot for over 50 years!

Click to expand...

I can appreciate it, I see the way you get treated sometimes.

I became a full-time photographer about 1970 or 71, and only "temporarily" went into lab work to learn something about the "black art" of color. But I kept having the opportunities to learn more and more, and found the tech work to be more interesting and challenging. So I never got back to full time shooting. I always told people (tongue in cheek) that I'm only there "temporary," and when I learn enough, I'm gonna leave and get a real job.

By the way, what I quoted was for our main lab. We had a handful of satellite labs that, combined, did that much more volume. We had sort of a staff responsibility for the process control and silver recovery there.

On top of that, we had, at one time, a chain of 600 minilabs, but they were a separate division with its own management. But now that I think about it, they did make me the temporary manager, for about a year, of the minilab equipment Refurbishing Facility - about 25 or 30 people redoing used minilabs (I didn't really do any real work though, they loaned me the supervisor from our camera repair shop, and he had to do all the browbeating). All sorts of great people.

We are truly blessed to have this much experience in the same place and time. Thanks gentlemen!

Photo Engineer said:

Bill, I sometimes feel the same way you do. To add to this "contest", my budget for color paper was about $5M / year in 1962! Our lab did a lot of color and B&W. And, I have been doing a lot for over 50 years!

PE

Click to expand...

Just to be clear, that was $50M. Sorry.

Bill and PE: I really appreciate your efforts and help. I quite rarely take part in these discussions, but as someone who mainly just reads these forums your knowledge and experience are really important.

There is way too much misinformation online, thank you for bringing your expertise on this forum!

Thanks.

PE

Yes I agree with kuparikettu and Brian Shaw: to PE and Mr. Bill,

Thank you for your participation in this forum. Your contributions are valued by myself, and I imagine by many others. I hope you continue to provide comments and advice as long as possible.

between mr bill and bob carnie's labs im surprised there was any paper left !
but ... i know someone who posts here once in a while, who probably will top the both of you ..

Photo Engineer said:

C41 films are generally more stable than E6 films due to using the latest generation of couplers with the best stability.

PE

Click to expand...

Hi PE, this is really quite a stunning piece of information. Could you expand upon this point please, one of the reasons why I started shooting Fuji E6 was for the long held belief that colour negative film degrades much quicker than slide film. I shoot a fair bit of Provia but its got me thinking that it still isn't really a general use colour film, and perhaps I should be using Ektar instead as it benefits from much wider latitude IMHE than Provia (I do project but have more interest in prints + we often find interesting subjects with colour in them that have to greater SBR to work on Velvia or Provia). Bizarrely despite all the criticisms of Ektar colour, I find looking back through my old scans its often easier to colour balance than Provia due to the strong shadow casts on that film, so I am a big fan of how Ektar looks.

Also is there going to be a difference with commercial processing in general due to the technology and process steps vs ideal processing of C41 v E6

Thanks, Neil.

By reading this theme again : "..................are not archival" I am willing, and trust me to state an other these :

DIGITAL SHOT PHOTOGRAPHS ARE GENERALY NOT ARCHIVAL - AT ALL !

So what is the practice of some national
archives? More and more they have digital photo documents wich are in a historic context but not shoot on film?

They "coppy" these 60MP datas with spezial equipment on film (bw film).

What do they with digital shots ? Are they
so stupit - so they have a lost of all colors.

No they haven't - they copy all Information of digital shots as : 00110001011011001000001000111011011100100 a.s.o. on film............

Wy do they not use cd rom, blue ray?

with regards