Rochester news about Kodak

Ray Rogers said:

Maybe they could learn to roll and unroll with fewer defects... ?

Click to expand...

Rolling and unrolling, by the nature of the process introduces scuffing defects with each rewind. As I said above, it appears that you have not coated a single sheet let alone a mile. I have coated both single sheets numbering in the thousands and at least 1/5 of a mile personally and a mile on order for testing, so I am quite aware of the problems.

PE

jnanian said:

maybe they should concentrate on 1 thing instead of spreading themselves so thin ..
other analog manufacturers are doing that, and seem to be doing OK ...

Click to expand...

They are trying to do just that!

Digital!

Photo Engineer said:

They are trying to do just that!

Digital!

Click to expand...

i am not up on the whole digital-thing .
are they doing that well ?
it seems they just lost a HUGE lawsuit ...


oh well, it was fun while it lasted !

They are not doing well at all IMHO.

PE

André E.C. said:

Support Ilford!

Click to expand...

I'm supporting Kodak. It makes no sense for me to abandon the only film I've used for over 10 years (Tmax) while it's still available. I will continue to buy it and use it while it's still around to be had. If I believe all the armchair CEO'S, COO's, etc., Kodak has mismanaged things. In spite of this they still make one kick a@# film: Tmax.

Jnanian ,

Leica S2 body costs 25000 dollars and uses 12000 dollars worth of Kodak CCD. I hated its colors but Leica may be new Leica Solms is good to select its raw materials.

ciocc ,

You are right , without Agfa , there is no competitor with Kodak BW Film quality and the Ektachrome.
But I am not rich so invest in Kodak 5222 Double X Short Cut Movie film , it is 10 times cheaper than Tmax.

Photo Engineer said:

Rolling and unrolling, by the nature of the process introduces scuffing defects with each rewind. As I said above, it appears that you have not coated a single sheet let alone a mile. I have coated both single sheets numbering in the thousands and at least 1/5 of a mile personally and a mile on order for testing, so I am quite aware of the problems.

PE

Click to expand...

I think the personal jabs are not helpful Ron.

No one said it would be problem free.
I just asked why you think those problems are unsolvable.

OK Scuff Marks... sure but just how unmanageable are they?
In a small set up, it might be able to have the film on a continous band untill all the coating is finished, elimminating the scuff mark problem...

Are you saying that good film can't be coated by hand?
Or that good film can't be coated slowly?
Or that good film can't be coated by anyone except Kodak?

Are you trying to say that untill Russels hopper was put in to use
no good color film was made and that quality began on that very day?

I think I am sounding way too argumentitive... sorry.
Let me restate my question in a way that will be easier to understand.

What are you going to say to the student who attends your workshop and reveals to you his plan to take his life savings and start making a simple color film and he wants you to help make it possible?

Ray;

If someone came to me wanting to start film production or paper production:

I would caution the student to be very careful and to be sure of his business plan. I would caution him to have several engineers besides myself and I would give him some names. I would give him pros and cons of what he is getting into. I have done this already several times over the last few years! I continue to do so. I hope this answers your question.

Regarding scuff marks, the problem was never really solved with anything but very slow emulsions with lots of gelatin. This gave less hardness, less sharpness and slow production rates which might be tolerable today. The methods probably would not allow for very high speed films such as ISO 400 - 800. It can be solved with a machine with 2 or 3 coating stations using Extrusion hoppers. As for the Russell hopper, as soon as it was working there was a major jump in coating speed and quality. This was such a change that Agfa was literally forced to convert to this method as were Fuji and Konica! So, yes, it is actually true that this invention changed the entire industry.

As for my personal comments, I mean only to point out an apparent lack of understanding or experience in your background which is shown in your posts Ray. My knowledge of rangefinder cameras could be inscribed on the head of a pin. So, I don't make comments or post there even though I own one. I don't discuss carbon printing very much, if at all, as well as Pt/Pd for the very same reason. In this instance, you have made statements showing huge gaps in your understanding of manufacturing processes in the field of photography. Ask questions, by all means. I mean you no harm or discomfort, but to make statements that miss the mark forces me to correct them. Others have noted this in posts as well.

OTOH, I do understand what you are trying to say, but it is often done awkwardly and unclearly, and sometimes you are just outright wrong. I am very sorry. A specific example is your use of glosry(? - I think that is your spelling of glossary) for a term on another web site, which I called a Dictionary. This confused me, and I had to ask a question for clarification. I also suggested taking that discussion to the other web site. If this offends you, I am again sorry, but your post required clarity for understanding. I wish you the best. You are certainly enthusiastic!

PE

I guess there are a lot of people today who are not that interested in extreme quality offered by Kodak, Fuji and Ilford. So, there are a lot of people using Rollei, Adox, Efke etc. films even when there are some reported quality problems that are inexistent in Kodak, Fuji and Ilford products. So, the possible risk for minor scuff marks, while is might sound unacceptable from a viewpoint from Kodak's engineer, might be still acceptable from the viewpoint of many (though not all!) end users. This is what I believe and I don't want to sound arrogant at all. It comes down to what is "acceptable" quality, and to the percentage of customers accepting that.

Nowadays, you can get perfectly "clean", non-grainy image with digital cameras. Film users today are looking for the "film look" which is a completely separate matter from production quality. And even if the speed and grain cannot be matched for digital or Kodak's high-end films of today, there are still many reasons to use film. I think most people just think the high-end grain, sharpness and high speed of today's film merely as an extra. If they were their only reasons behind the product selection, they'd usually select the very smooth and high-ISO digital imaging.

I hope that the day when high-quality color film cannot be manufactured anymore will never come, but if it comes, I really hope that lower-quality color film will be available. Even if it was based on the technology of 60's. Nobody is complaining how the color images from the movies from 1960's look. They look fantastic even now, of course given the fact that they are well preserved.

So, now if I may give the ball to you, PE, as you know the history of actual manufacturing processes for color film better than any of us posting in this thread; what kind of technology was used in the 1960's at Kodak, and would it be possible to companies who currently coat BW film, to try to imitate that? Not exactly the same, but the same "level" of technology.

Actually, I feel like they could do even higher. I have a hunch that they could do something like T grains, etc., getting them to the level of 1980's. I might be wrong! I guess that the coating is the harder part, but I think that if we combine the emulsion making of 1990's with coating of 1970's it will still be better than if both of them were from 1970's.

Hope this makes any sense.

hrst ,

Are you talking about 60s as Technicolor movies ? These films are 3D relief and taken understrong lighting which harm the actors retinas and this technology not even exist today ? May be possible with inkjet printing with different ink weight per dot but it is not acceptable to talk about inkjets at APUG. May be all of us will print our positives on transparent medium with imk jet setters but 20 years later.

Umut

Umut;

To date, I have been unable to print an acceptable negative or transparency on film using inkjet! It may never come! At least for the home user.

HRST;

Films of the 60s use single run emulsions, sometimes unblended, they did not use DIR or DIAR couplers for enhanced color correction, and they used simple sulfur + gold sensitization. The sensitizing dyes were simple. Dyes were state of the art for that time, but less stable than desired.

Todays films are blends of 3 emulsions per layer, of double run grains including T-grains or cubes. They use complex chemical sensitizers and metal dopants along with other methods to improve emulsion stability, latent image keeping and reciprocity. They included dye layering and 2 electron sensitization for higher speed with finer grain and better sharpness. Dyes now are highly stabilized and contain incorporated stabilizing agents.

So, a film of the 60s was slower (highest speed was about 160, and the 400 was marginal IMHO), worse for keeping, reciprocity and latent image keeping and had lower image stability (which was still pretty good). Overall, you would not like a 60s film today. How many complaints have you seen about Chinese color neg, and that is probably an 80s formula.

PE

hrst said:

I guess there are a lot of people today who are not that interested in extreme quality offered by Kodak...

Click to expand...

You could have ended your sentence after the word "quality." Unfortunately, most humans know the price of all things and the value of none. That's why Walmart thrives.

I think APUG color photographers problem comes from very expensive Photoshop , lack of knowledge to use it properly and lack of knowledge of color theory. I find myself safe at the hands of Ektachrome or Velvia and do not want to select from the millions of colors at photoshop. This is prepress and not everyone can do. You must know C 80 M 50 Y 10 color meaning to you at photoshop. Its possible to spend hours every day in colors and years total. I worked as Crossfield 656 drum scanner operator and some adapt it soon some never.
Photoshop is like painting and some of us dont like this idea. Thats why people do not want to talk about it here.

Photo Engineer said:

Ray;

If someone came to me wanting to start film production or paper production:
...I would give him pros and cons of what he is getting into.

As for my personal comments, I mean only to point out an apparent lack of understanding or experience in your background which is shown in your posts Ray.

Click to expand...

So you would give them the pros and cons?
But here I see you giving mostly cons to anyone who displays the slightest glimmer of anything but the smallest dreams... If that is a fair assesment, Why?
---
I am quite aware of the benefit of T.A. Russel's work... Kodak collected millions of USD in royalites due to it...but to be fair, are you discrediting all other coated emulsions before that time? Are they just so much trash?

I think that you don't show enough respect to the emulsions and emulsion engineers that came before you, or worked in companies other than your own.
---
Your occasional comments designed to remind others of the knowledge gap between youself and the person you are speking to is unfortunate and sad.
But it is a price I will gladly pay to learn.

I guess you've never had a spelling glitch,
but I forget spellings all the time!
I am also having to deal with a broken keyboard at the moment...

But isn't this thread is about Kodak ? :confused:
Why are we talking about my shortcommings?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pointing out a lack of understanding or experience in someone's background is helpful
in responding to their questions becase....

Ray your not actually contributing anything to this thread so what is your purpose of participating other than to cause friction and hassle.
I recommend you evaluate your posts again and try and bring some thoughts or knowledge to the table other than trolling those partaking in a discussion.

Ray;

I do not denigrate any product before the Russel coater. I merely point out that Kodak quality climbed and Kodak's coating speed climbed. It enabled lower waste due to lower scuffing of the coating due to fewer rewinds. This products that had defects and which were made by Kodak, Agfa, Ilford, Konica and Fuji NEVER got to the customer so what is there to complain about on my part or run down. What the new coater did was to decrease internal waste on the part of Kodak and therefore reduced costs. You have somehow misunderstood the entire content of my post and blamed me for putting down other manufacturers products. This is not the case. The products were excellent, the waste was higher for others not using the slide coater.

PE

Still, the movies of 60's are being "remastered" to Blu-Ray, and I can hear people admiring the look and feel of the images, such as color rendition, the ability to capture different shades of light, etc. -- and resolution, even when it's just a small 35mm frame.

It is very hard to predict what people exactly want!

Well I'm talking about movies as an example now because they are good examples of color neg material that have preserved well and are still easily "available" for anybody to see, but the same applies to still images. People who are lucky to have non-faded slides from the 70's (I'll skip Kodachrome since it's hard to process even if the film would be easier to make, and I can see that easy (home) processing is a MUST in the future) also know what I'm talking about, some of them look very good even with universal standards, even today. If they just look good, they don't need to be compared to anything else.

The point I want to make is, even when these old materials have much lower speed, less sharpness, more grain and more defects such as scratches and dust from keeping, making copies etc., they still show a distinctive look that can be admired. They can show an usable log E range of 10 stops, which may be less than today's 15 stops or so, but they still have enough to compete with digital cameras. They may have the image partly on toe and shoulder (which is unideal from the engineering point), but it's part of film look, for people who are sick of digital clipping. They may have grain, but "it's supposed to be there". And... They may be slow, as slow as ISO 50 or so, but people still find ways to use them easily. ISO 1 would be a bit too slow !

It may be very "low-tech look" from the viewpoint of an engineer, but my assertions remain;

1) Those, who strive for extreme "cleanliness" and "smoothness" more than anything, have mostly gone digital. Of course some remain, but most of them are BW enthusiasts.

2) Those, who need extreme sensitivity (speed), have mostly gone digital, because it gives up to two stops more speed than even the most modern films (usable ISO 3200 vs. usable ISO 800 in color).

3) Snapshooters have mostly gone digital, which is of course a pity since they can be used to make money to support other segments

... then, the point is, who are remaining? I think the people who remain;

A) already accept that film has grain
B) already accept that image may have slight physical defects if it cannot be avoided
C) already accept that film is somewhat slow in ISO speed

So, they MIGHT be content with lower-tech film. I don't want to make it sound like an absolute conclusion, because I don't know, I'm just expressing how I feel the "analog photography community".

The point I want to make is that I would gladly accept the films from the 60's even today in my palette of choices. In fact I'd like to have them in any case, even just out of interest. But if other films would disappear, then there would be no question about it! I wouldn't abandon film even if the technical quality dropped a few decades.

Some people would complain but that's inevitable, people will complain no matter what and they have right to do that.

But, it's very hard to predict what others think. The somewhat success of the Impossible Project -- I mean, they are producing complete crap in terms of quality, but people are still interested and buying the stuff -- shows there IS interest in low-tech, small scale production of very difficult materials (color instant film!)

Does anyone think like me? And especially, would it be commercially viable even in "small scale"? No one can answer that, we have to wait and see, but I think we could drop the assumption that tomorrow's film has to be as high tech as the most modern Portra 400, if there is no other choice.

JayGannon said:

Ray your not actually contributing anything to this thread so what is your purpose of participating other than to cause friction and hassle.
I recommend you evaluate your posts again and try and bring some thoughts or knowledge to the table other than trolling those partaking in a discussion.

Click to expand...

Jay, well said. Ray states that he is sensitive but his questions more often come sounding like attacks. Hence, I have aimed some sharp comments towards him. It would help if his posts did not have the tone that no one at Kodak, Fuji, Ilford, et al could find their way out of bed in the morning without help, some of us would not feel like he is a troll. I certainly do not have the patience that PE has extended to him.

Steve

Jay, I am taking your advice and reviewing...

I don't like the way Ray is getting to be a scapegoat. I think he has valid points, and he definitely is not the only part "throwing stones". OTOH, I understand that his style of questioning annoys some people but I see an innocent curiosity shining through his words. I hope I'm right in that! He also shows interest in emulsion making, and although he likes to question everything, it is also his strong point. We should be on the very same side!

hrst said:

Does anyone think like me?

Click to expand...

Absolutely...

But I am under a self-imposed restriction not to post in this thread. It's too dangerous.

So if asked about this, my reponse will be:


Ken

Ok, Jay

My recent posts were related to a response by PE to Alan Johnson where Alan wrote:
Fotokemika in Croatia (Efke, Adox) has smaller machines that are said to be economic at lower levels of production.

and PE came back with only cons:

"Many products require more than one layer. Color film requires up to 14 layers. The machines at Efke for example, only apply one or at most two layers in one pass and therefore would require 7 passes to 14 passes through a machine for one color film. In addition, they coat at about 100 ft / min. To get a real feeling for this, their production of color would be at about 1/7th that rate for a 2 station coater and with a huge defect rate due to the method of coating and the constant rewinds. The film would therefore be very very expensive to produce in sufficient quantity.

PE"

There was no encouragement there, no hope no dreams.
Just doom and no-ism.

I disagree not in the facts per se, but in the lack of positive perspective....

Anyway Jay, Steve- I am finished.

Good night.
---
(Cars? Oh they pollute and cost money for fuel and maintaince... and they kill!
very true but not the whole picture)

Let me try to get some positive perspective.

So let's do 2 emulsions for blue and 3 for green and red as is usual, but mix them so that there are 1+1+1 emulsions. Then, we need to coat; overcoat | blue | CLS filter | green | interlayer | red | subbing w/ antihalation & base. That would mean 3 passes if the machines make two layers at a time. Or, if a third coating head is added, then it would mean two passes. This could be an single-layer extrusion type of coater, but having 2-3 of them. Does this sound possible?

What kind of drawbacks would the mixing of different grain size emulsions cause? I guess there might be speed losses, loss in curve linearity and total tonal range, but how bad would it be? And when compared to a polydisperse emulsion?

And to clarify to everyone discussing this (well at least PE and Ray know, but for others too); this is not idle chatter, I'm really interested not just speculating but also doing these things. To prove it, take a look of emulsion I made and coated a few months ago from scratch: http://www.students.tut.fi/~alhonena/emulsio2010/

...