Rochester news about Kodak

[ecemz]

So great.
That's why I keep reading this forum even if I have not ever posted before.

 

[Alan Johnson]

btw, this company appears to have found the necessary capital to re-start production of black and white film (they re-sell Fotokemika products as well) although the size of the coating machine or its origin is not clear:
http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_History/About_ADOX.html

 

[Photo Engineer]

The coating machine at that web site is about the size of the Kodak small machines that no longer exist.

See Simon Galley's thread here on the Ilford commitment to B&W photography.

Look at the color wedge spectrogram on the Adox web page.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

You want me to say Blue = wavelengths from 400 - 500? Who here understands wavelengths as color. Besides that is inaccurate in that it does not include the possible shades of blue.

You want me to say magenta is wavelengths from 400 - 500 and 600 - 700, but not from 500 - 600? Again confusing. Also inaccurate as there are many combinations that create all of the colors we see. This simplification is for the average reader.

The attached are from Kodak and show the relationships I described. I have posted it before.

Blue is the left of the spectrum, Green is the middle and Red is the right. Blue is absent and Green and Red are present in the area we see as Yellow, and Red is absent and Green and Blue are present in the area we see as Cyan. Magenta can be shown only by overlapping the Blue and Red regions and leaving out the Green regions.

But then that is shown in the other examples. And since they disagree with QGs world view, he dismissed them the last time.

But then, this is far far off topic. Sorry guys.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Back at the factory...

The coating machine at that web site is about the size of the Kodak small machines that no longer exist.

Look at the color wedge spectrogram on the Adox web page.

PE

?

What are we looking for?

 

[Photo Engineer]

You are looking for the words "coating machine" as part of the caption of a photo at the Adox web site that was referred to in the post about Adox above my post.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I was asked to as a joke probably to provoke you.

PE

 

[tomasis]

leave colors aside,

PE, i want ask you about B&W film. I noticed that small manufacturers produce low iso films. I guess that it is easier manufacture.

Kodak Trix seems to be refined version.

So my question is how hard is to produce a film as Trix/HP-5 (whatever if it is new or old 60's tech) for small company if it has to make a new fresh start?

I like this film because of this look, cubic particles and easy capability to push iso up to 6400. Unfortunately none as Foma or Adox can offer for this alternative. Sincerely I hope Kodak doesnt give up B&W business easily. They could sell the business division to the enthusiasts as another alternative.

 

[Ray Rogers]

You are looking for the words "coating machine" as part of the caption of a photo at the Adox web site that was referred to in the post about Adox above my post.

PE

I meant the wedge spectrogram...

 

[Photo Engineer]

Tomais;

When films were first produced, the ISO was about 3 - 10 and today we have ISO 400, 800 and even higher in some cases. Early films also were used in LF cameras and it was not until about 1940 that films became fine grained enough and sharp enough that they could be used in 35mm cameras. Even then they were generally ISO 10 - 25.

Higher speeds require more sophisticated making and coating facilities. The same is true of papers.

The more sophisticated films and papers also require slightly higher coating speeds to get good quality, and therefore the machines tend to be larger than they could otherwise be. And, they are very expensive.

So, the smaller companies stick with slower films and older papers which use older formulas and coating conditions.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I meant the wedge spectrogram...

Thanks for the clarification Ray.

You are looking at the colors in a spectrum as produced by a film, thus relating a film to the real world of the spectrum as seen in my subsequent post.

You should also note the washed out green, typical either of crosstalk or a set of unbalanced layers.

PE

 

[lxdude]

I am color blind. I do not know what "green" is. When I look at a field of grass, I see the light reflected from the yellow and red chlorophyl, not the green, and so it appears to me to be orange. Color is entirely a product of our minds, our vision system. Light and color are not the same.

And that, Q.G., is what you're not understanding. PE's talking about how we sense color, not color as discrete sections of the EM spectrum. We do not possess sensors in our eyes for every color we perceive.
It is also how film and digital "sense" color. They do not record color by selectively recording discrete wavelengths.

 

[lxdude]

I remembered while drinking recently that according to one in the dreaded Kodak has deleted Kodachrome thread that magenta is not a color! Is that true or should we all just get a bong?

Based on PE's explanation of color, it's because they're losing money. They ran out of green!

 

[lxdude]

Magenta can be shown only by overlapping the Blue and Red regions and leaving out the Matenta regions.


PE

???

 

[georg16nik]

???

PE is right,
Magenta is a color evoked by light stronger in blue and red wavelengths than in yellowish-green wavelengths. (complements of magenta have wavelength 500–530 nm, i.e. green.) In light experiments, magenta can be produced by removing the lime-green wavelengths from white light. It is an extra-spectral color, meaning it cannot be generated by a single wavelength of light, being a mixture of red and blue wavelengths.

 

[Q.G.]

I am color blind. I do not know what "green" is. When I look at a field of grass, I see the light reflected from the yellow and red chlorophyl, not the green, and so it appears to me to be orange. Color is entirely a product of our minds, our vision system. Light and color are not the same.

True.

But so what?
Pain too is just product of our minds. Yet you sure know what will happen if you hit your thumb with a ten pound sledgehammer. Even though pain is not being hit on your thumb with a ten pound sledgehammer, but entirely a product of our minds.

We can play this realist vs idealist game all day, and it doesn't make one iota of a difference.

There is a correlation between our perception of colour and wavelengths of light.
Just as there is between that hammer landing on your thumb and the pain your mind produces.

 

[Q.G.]

And that, Q.G., is what you're not understanding. PE's talking about how we sense color, not color as discrete sections of the EM spectrum. We do not possess sensors in our eyes for every color we perceive.

And what you and PE are not understanding is that an emulsion doesn't care about how you might see colour when it responds to a stimulus produced by being hit by a photon from the 'yellow' region of the spectrum.

The tri-colour colour theory is all well and fine. If and when it is relevant and appropriate.
Insisting on explaining all colour-phenomena by reverting to some tri-colour mumbo jumbo is silly and a show of real ignorance.

It is also how film and digital "sense" color. They do not record color by selectively recording discrete wavelengths.

Indeed.
So if a yellow photon hits an emulsion, the emulsion will change in response to that.
If a blue photon does the same, it does the same. Etc.
If you want it to make a difference between the different colours, you will have to devise a way to make that emulsion or sensor "sense" only those colours you want it to.

See the two 'layers' involved?
See also why insisting on talking about tri-colour when a B&W emulsion is concerned is nonsense?

 

[lxdude]

=Photo Engineer;1136053
leaving out the Matenta regions.

To clarify: PE, you mean Green, right?

 

[Q.G.]

PE is right,
Magenta is a color evoked by light stronger in blue and red wavelengths than in yellowish-green wavelengths. (complements of magenta have wavelength 500–530 nm, i.e. green.) In light experiments, magenta can be produced by removing the lime-green wavelengths from white light. It is an extra-spectral color, meaning it cannot be generated by a single wavelength of light, being a mixture of red and blue wavelengths.

Yikes!
You're absolutely right about magenta being a non-spectrum colour.
But you will from now on be haunted by PE and his cronies, calling you the (other) man who says magenta is not a colour.

Why they do that, you may ask.
Well... i have explained that above.

 

[georg16nik]

Q.G., show us some color photography of yours., to give us an idea how You apply Your knowledge on the subject.
I was not able to locate any in Your APUG gallery... :confused:

Thanks,
G

 

[Alan Johnson]

Not sure the following is quite accurate, it is derived from web reading:

When the original Adox company in Germany folded, Efke in Croatia (Now Fotokemika) bought all their manufacturing plant,I believe that would include the machine captioned "small coating machine ADOX Fotowerke"
Film for the present Adox company is said to be produced by Inoviscoat which is a spin off from Agfa but IDK if they use an ex-Agfa coating machine or what size it is.
www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-93368.html

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G., show us some color photography of yours., to give us an idea how You apply Your knowledge on the subject.
I was not able to locate any in Your APUG gallery... :confused:

Thanks,
G

And there we are. We have arrived at the bottom of the pit once again.

Do you think you understand colour better if you see somebody's colour photographs?

Do you think anyone would believe you understand what colour is, how it works, when you show a drawing you have coloured in with crayons?

 

[lxdude]

When will you begin to truly get a grasp of this thing called colour?

Yes, any 1st grader with some crayons will patiently explain to PE how he's wrong, because everybody knows Blue and Yellow make Green, Blue and Red make Purple, etc.


The sensation of color is not produced in just one way. PE explained the method relevant to photographic imaging.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Thanks to those who corrected my very bad error in post #233. I've fixed it.

PE

 

[georg16nik]

And there we are. We have arrived at the bottom of the pit once again.

Do you think you understand colour better if you see somebody's colour photographs?

Do you think anyone would believe you understand what colour is, how it works, when you show a drawing you have coloured in with crayons?

I believe somebody's colour photographs says a lot.
Absence of such tells a lot.. as well

Q.G., I believe You can be a bit more kind to fellow APUG members