DeletedAcct1
Allowing Ads
Wow, ISO 640?
Very Interesting, I wonder if it is some sort of Push Process setup.
If they're labeling as ISO 640, they're claiming they've gone through the ISO testing process and the film gave that result. .
Wait, apart from the specific density difference between these two points, isn't there a specific exposure difference between them, equal to 4,33 stops? I was under the impression that the developer used wasn't important, as long as the film achieved the claimed speed.FYI: ISO speeds have a range of acceptability under the definition, depending on the manufacturer's specified conditions.
View attachment 255781
HP5+ ?I'm curious about this new film. Anyone knows what it is?
That was, more or less, my thought, too.Hmm. Rollei Supergrain developer, 1+9 for 8 minutes, or 1+12 for 9:30. Lots of grain in the example images; I'm guessing this is a stock we've seen before from Macophot at ISO 400, with a specified process that pushes the speed 2/3 stop.
I immediately steer away from "limited edition" films for obvious reasons. It would be much more informative and practical if Maco could state where the film comes from: that won't affect the sales at all, since most probably the original emulsion isn't directly available to normal customers.If a "new" film is not a new film by any real definition of new then it debases the marketing of it as such. Worse than this is the fact that it can plant doubts about the validity of other information from the same source.
Paul and Reinhold give me the feeling of unpretentious reliability. Fantome 8 is a mixture of the Left Bank with a hint of Gallic darkness a la the film Rififi or even Harry Lime in high contrast post-war Vienna whereas Babylon 13 has a hint of the Arabian Nights, fast moonlight rides on a fine horse across the exotic desert with a handsome Sheik at the reins.
pentaxuser
I guess you don't approve of those ads for the "new and improved" version of your laundry detergent.If a "new" film is not a new film by any real definition of new then it debases the marketing of it as such. Worse than this is the fact that it can plant doubts about the validity of other information from the same source.
I guess you don't approve of those ads for the "new and improved" version of your laundry detergent.
Matt when U.K. TV first got a commercial station it was called ITV standing for Independent Television and featured ADs such as someone turning a hose towards the announcer who had a sheet of very clean clear glass that you couldn't see that was in front of him and who stayed perfectly dry of course . This was the same kind of invisible shield he said that protected your teeth if you used toothpaste XThe other AD that sticks in my mind and in my craw was that a washing machine manufacturer recommended washing powder X for its machines for the best results
Over 60 years on and the same snake-oil salesman mentality still works with a generation that is at least 3 times removed from those susceptible to that kind of BS. So no progress in over 60 years and three generations of adults since then. Educationalists have a lot to answer for.
pentaxuser
Is this a reference to the Chinese gent who seems to be the only source for 220 so far or is there now evidence that 220 is genuinely coming off the Shanghai production lines and have you seen anything to indicate its distribution through other retail channels?Also there is now Shanghai GP3 in 400 speed... in 35mm and 120, and 220
If they're labeling as ISO 640, they're claiming they've gone through the ISO testing process and the film gave that result. That's not a push, though it does allow the manufacturer to specify a contrast index for the speed they claim. There are films around with higher native speeds, though -- Delta 3200 has a real speed above 1000, and so does T-Max P3200 (their marketing names give a pushed speed, but the manufacturer data sheets make it pretty clear that's a pushed speed). The old Royal X Pan had a real speed of 1600 (and grain like golf balls).
The ISO testing means it's been tested either by the ASA/BS method or the German DIN method, Kodak had the ASA method altered because Tmax 100 couldn't meet the existing standard. I assume the BS (British Standard) also changed.
Attached some images, its retail film.Is this a reference to the Chinese gent who seems to be the only source for 220 so far or is there now evidence that 220 is genuinely coming off the Shanghai production lines and have you seen anything to indicate its distribution through other retail channels?
Note: This is a question seeking information and is not a challenge, just in case there is any misunderstanding.
Thanks
pentaxuser
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?