Rochester news about Kodak

[JayGannon]

I feel your misinterpreting PE then, because all I get from that is an educated experienced perspective on a highly complex manufacturing procedure, which it is, engineers don't sugar coat the fact that high quality manufacturing is incredibly hard to do and impossible for most outside of a very small group of skilled engineers and operators.

This can be applied to any manufacturing situation which has a low tolerance for errors. He was merely stating the facts from his perspective as someone who produced something that we haven't.

The facts are not up for discussion as I believe that PE has the experience required to make relatively definitive statements on Film manufacturing procedures, experience that I dont think anyone else here has. So he was not really offering a perspective rather than elaborating on the facts.

 

[lxdude]

Your occasional comments designed to remind others of the knowledge gap between youself and the person you are speking to is unfortunate and sad.

Ray, to quote you:
That was an uncalled for low blow.

It is just a sad fact that when someone with knowledge on a subject speaks directly (which to me is much more respectful than being condescending), some people will take it wrong. I have encountered that in my own fields of expertise, where I spoke plainly and made points based on knowledge and experience and expected others would be mature enough to hear it as it was given, not as a putdown. That was sometimes not the case.

Ron hardly has to demonstrate that his knowledge regarding the design and manufacture of film and paper is superior to that of just about all of us. It simply is.
He is informing us of reality as he sees it. We can accept it or not, disagree, argue even, but that does not mean his motives are to self-aggrandize.

You really ought to apologize for that statement.

 

[Diapositivo]

On the unfortunate matter of whether Ray was excessive in putting his ideas forward, my simple idea is that in an ideal forum if you don't like what somebody writes (if he doesn't involve you directly) you just ignore what he writes. Sometimes, inevitably, a "row" happens between two forum participants. That's just very human and it's often not easy to clearly see who was more authorised to feel irritated first. I find that in those occasion it is the exclusive competence of the forum moderator to stop the bickering. Siding at each side, making the conversation descend into group fingerpointing, is something that I think should be avoided.

Now I know somebody might say that I, myself, this very moment, am fingerpointing and not relying on moderators to moderate a forum.

Fabrizio

 

[lxdude]

I understand, Fabrizio, but our moderators are busy people without a lot of time. Some self-policing helps.
I don't completely disagree with you, but when someone personally attacks another, unwarranted and unprovoked, I sometimes speak up.

 

[hrst]

I feel your misinterpreting PE then, because all I get from that is an educated experienced perspective on a highly complex manufacturing procedure, which it is, engineers don't sugar coat the fact that high quality manufacturing is incredibly hard to do and impossible for most outside of a very small group of skilled engineers and operators.

This can be applied to any manufacturing situation which has a low tolerance for errors. He was merely stating the facts from his perspective as someone who produced something that we haven't.

The facts are not up for discussion as I believe that PE has the experience required to make relatively definitive statements on Film manufacturing procedures, experience that I dont think anyone else here has. So he was not really offering a perspective rather than elaborating on the facts.

You are completely correct in all of this, and as an "engineer" myself also I understand this concept very well. Once we have a specification, we have to keep to facts and not hopes.

But I'd like to hear who set the EXACT criteria for the end product at the first place? I think that one is still open for discussion, and if we don't lock it down but let it swing around while we discuss the possibilities, then we have many doors to open.

I see a lot of off-topic concerning Ray's messages. I don't think it's necessary. I think this discussion has space for both PE and Ray, and for everybody else, but let's try to keep on topic. If you think Ray's done something wrong, you are at least as much wrong as him by going even more off the road. Let's continue on the topic, please! It is looking good every time we discuss some concrete technical aspects in this otherwise gloomy thread. There must be space also for differing opinions.

 

[Diapositivo]

Does Ferrania still manufacture film?

I believe the US manufacturing plant has closed. Perhaps the plant in Italy is still operating. However, I read somewhere that the film making operation was not profitable as was basically being propped up by the Italian government for prestige and/or political reasons.

Ferrania went into amministrazione controllata around 2004. That's a situation in which creditors do not feel the firm can repay its debt and they ask protection to the judge. Basically means old Ferrania went "bankrupt" in 2004. The judge manages (through appointed persons) the firm and the appointed persons look what's better to do in the interest of stakeholders (creditors but also , factually, workers).

That might also mean that the cassa integrazione is activated for a firm, that is wages for workers are integrated by a fund which is jointly financed by "the Government" and the industrial system (and workers for a small part maybe) and which exists for this kind of emergency help.

This phase ended somewhere around 2009 when the firm was given to a group that intended to produce solar panels. An Indian firm, which had made a bid for Ferrania, with the intent of producing sensitive material for the Asian/Indian market, announced they were going to court to fight the sale. So there even was a raw about who would buy Ferrania and that was to use it to make film.

I don't know how it ended but I can infer from the fact that Ferrania today mainly produces solar panels that the Indian group either gave up the legal fight or lost it.

Still, from what I can gather from their web site, Ferrania did not stop producing sensitive material (they are also a producer of other stuff such as X-Ray film).

It is entirely possible that Ferrania will sooner or later stop film production. It is possible that they stopped producing film and they did not tell the world. How do we know? For the moment, they officially produce film. They did not announce any intention to stop doing so as far as I am aware.

My observation about Ferrania was made because of the asserted difficulty about producing small quantities of film with decent quality and decent costs.

I don't know about the quality of Ferrania film (I don't shoot negatives) and their profitability, but what I can say is that they typically cost less than Kodak or Fuji competition (that's true in Italy at least), and they are produced in quantities that are probably a very tiny fraction of the quantities produced by the big two.

Ferrania is probably the only colour film producer left in Europe. So if you see some house-branded film "made in the EU" that I think should be produced by Ferrania.

Fabrizio

 

[lxdude]

If you think Ray's done something wrong, you are at least as much wrong as him by going even more off the road.

More OT:

I disagree. If someone's not called on it, it continues. As I said, "self policing".
I voiced an objection because the statement was egregiously disrespectful.

The topic would have continued with or without it.

OK, I'm done.

 

[darkwave]

Hi, Rollei also makes color film, once agfa aviphoto

reversal: Rollei DigiBase CR ® 200 PRO
negative: Rollei DigiBase ® 200 CN

 

[Q.G.]

Rollei doesn't make film, but leases out the Rollei brand name to be put on film (among other things).
(Maco? Maco doesn't make film themselves, do they?).

 

[Photo Engineer]

Ok, let us use an example of Plant X (UNNAMED BUT REAL) making film. They use a trough or dip coater at speeds of about 10 - 100 ft /min. IDK how many troughs they have in the coating train. They use open air festoon drying! This is about 1920 style production. This real facility is in operation only when the weather is acceptable for manufacturing film, as they have no air conditioning or drying capability. So, it can't be too hot, cold or wet!

I have posted an example of their film here previously which I am reposting here. This is a sample of film from a trough coater. It is typical of the result which gives a sinusoidal pattern to the coating. In addition, festoon drying introduces a defect at the point where the header racks are positioned at the ceiling. Therefore if you have a 40 ft ceiling, then the longest roll of film is either 40 ft (if you use bottom racks) or 80 ft if you use gravity to hold the festoon in place (not a good idea but possible). This limits you to making amateur roll films and prohibits motion picture film production due to length restrictions. Well, the sinusoidal density patterns will give you a nauseating headache on screen projections too. This is probably why some old motion pictures show light/dark variations in a regular pattern.

Scuff marks or cinch marks will be random over the surface of the film and cannot be detected easily without a sophisticated system. In fact, I would be surprised if the bulk of them can even be detected. This is worse with coarse grain, low gelatin coatings as the grains actually stick up as bumps on the surface of the coating and cinching causes streaks and foggy spots.

To continue, the new hardeners are so toxic and so quick acting that they cannot be used in a trough coater, as the fumes would harm the lead coater, and the trough would set up within a few seconds of being filled.

So, I've enumerated possible problems and actual problems at one potential supplier of film your film if Kodak, Ilford or Fuji goes under.

Now, to fix these there would need to be a huge capital investment that would add drying cabinets, hepa filters, undercut roller transport, multiple extrusion or a single slide hopper front end, containment and handling of a new hardener and that would bring the facility up to producing a modern film, or at least reduce the defects inherent in their current production. Of course this also would require an upgrade in the pumping system and the film transport system to eliminate that pattern in the attached scan.

The engineers at Plant X are amazing people to make what they do with the equipment they have, so I stand in awe at their ability, but I do have to show you the flaws as suggested by HRST. You guys are buying this film. You guys complain on-line about defects constantly.

Kodak, Ilford and Fuji are committed to quality products. That is all I can add. Now, as for color, multiply everything by about 10x just for starters (but it is more like 100 - 1000x probably).

PE

 

[Diapositivo]

Darkwave, I stand corrected. It seems that Rollei Digibase CR 200 PRO film (reversal) and CN 200 PRO film (negative) are "Produced by Agfa-Gevaert N.V.
B-2640 Mortsel • Made in Belgium".

Ron, I suppose you refer to an Asian producer somehow claiming to have good fortune on his side

Fabrizio

 

[Photo Engineer]

No Fabrizio, the company is not Asian. Most Asian companies are better equipped. Sorry.

PE

 

[ntenny]

Ron, interesting insight into a process many of us don't see. I'm curious about your point that the 40-foot (or whatever) ceiling limits them to production of "amateur roll films". I see where it precludes cine film, but what's "amateur" about 120?

I'm fairly sure I've used products from Plant X based on your description, and I certainly haven't run into anything that looks like the sinusoidal-density sample you posted. More generally, if they're the company I'm thinking of[*], they have plenty of users at APUG, and while there's a consensus that their QC and batch consistency aren't anything like the big three producers, I don't remember many cases of posters saying "My Plant X film is unusable!"---which clearly that sample would be.

I think it's fair to say that there are two possible commercial cases for film manufacture; one uses smaller-scale facilities and doesn't produce enough cash flow to make large capital expenditures towards modernisation feasible, and therefore essentially can't match Kodak/Ilford/Fuji in consistency and technical quality, while the other consists of, well, Kodak/Fuji/Ilford (and maybe the remaining portions of the Agfa complex).

You make a very good case that the barriers to entry are prohibitive for the second model, which is depressing, but I think many of us will feel like the world hasn't ended as long as some companies are able to make a go of it doing the first one.

-NT


[*] If they're the other plausible candidate, they have a somewhat worse track record but still have plenty of reasonable, discriminating people using their stuff by choice.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Nathan;

A few points here.....

First, 120 is not precluded except for handling problems with the thinner support. If they can handle it without kinking, then 120 is possible. I believe that this particular plant does do 120.

Second, complaints about the sinusoidal pattern were described here on APUG which is what led me to post it before. There are recurring problems that were seen in LF and 35mm IIRC.

Third, complaints overall range from black spots on film (pepper grain) to emulsion liftoff or separation from the support. This is either bad subbing, bad hardening, bad drying or some other similar problem in the coating operation.

Fourth, many complain about severe curl which is due to several possible things. They do not use properly tentered support, or they do not use a back coating to reduce curl, or they do not add humectants to the emulsion to prevent shrinkage.

These and other problems abound on APUG with a number of manufacturers. I am sensitive to them, because many people come to me for answers. I am only pointing out here what kind of problems exist and what upgrades would be needed to fix them and move into the mid 20th century including perhaps color.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

I have posted an example of their film here previously which I am reposting here. This is a sample of film from a trough coater. It is typical of the result which gives a sinusoidal pattern to the coating.

How do you know how this particular film was coated?
(Fair question?)

You said it is typical of the result which gives a sinusoidal pattern to the coating.... is this because a sinusoidal pattern is the best and only possible outcome with trough coating?

Or because more skill or tighter control is needed somewhere?

 

[ntenny]

First, 120 is not precluded except for handling problems with the thinner support. If they can handle it without kinking, then 120 is possible. I believe that this particular plant does do 120.

I think I was confused by your phrase "amateur roll films". Why "amateur"?

Second, complaints about the sinusoidal pattern were described here on APUG which is what led me to post it before. There are recurring problems that were seen in LF and 35mm IIRC.

Fair enough. I think I managed to find that thread. But I guess this subthread is getting slightly off in the weeds---your point as I understood it wasn't "Plant X film is bad and here's why", but "here are some of the problems faced by Plant X that would present serious barriers to a move into more modern emulsions, higher QC levels, and/or colour". In that light it makes perfect sense and I appreciate the extra information.

-NT

 

[removed account4]

...

 

[Photo Engineer]

How do you know how this particular film was coated?
(Fair question?)

You said it is typical of the result which gives a sinusoidal pattern to the coating.... is this because a sinusoidal pattern is the best and only possible outcome with trough coating?

Or because more skill or tighter control is needed somewhere?

Ray;

I know exactly where and how this piece of film was coated It was sent to me in confidence for diagnosis with all added information needed to respond.

You seem to wish to question my every statement, but this one is exactly true.

As for the pattern, it is narrower with extrusion hoppers, and slide and curtain coaters give different defects.

PE

 

[Photo Engineer]

I think I was confused by your phrase "amateur roll films". Why "amateur"?



Fair enough. I think I managed to find that thread. But I guess this subthread is getting slightly off in the weeds---your point as I understood it wasn't "Plant X film is bad and here's why", but "here are some of the problems faced by Plant X that would present serious barriers to a move into more modern emulsions, higher QC levels, and/or colour". In that light it makes perfect sense and I appreciate the extra information.

-NT

Nathan;

You are right on. That is exactly where I was coming from. My choice of amateur was "amateurish" and wrong. Sorry. I should have been clearer. Thanks for pointing that out.

PE

 

[hpulley]

120 used to be the amateur film before 35mm came along, Brownies and so on. Amateurs used rolls, pros sheets. Back then pros all used 4x5 and larger, big press cameras etc. 120 was a small format when it came out! Most prints were contacts so 35mm or smaller wouldn't have been much good.

 

[Photo Engineer]

I know, but I could have done a better job of explaining. Sorry.

PE

 

[Ray Rogers]

Ray;

I know exactly where and how this piece of film was coated It was sent to me in confidence for diagnosis with all added information needed to respond.

You seem to wish to question my every statement, but this one is exactly true.

PE

No offense intended... It is not that I WANT to question your every statement, it's just that I can see different interpretations... in this case you might have coated it yourself or that patern might be closely linked to trough coating... or, you might have just presumed as much based on production capacity... all of that rushed through my mind as I read your post, and I just wanted to be clear. Sorry.
---
Although you did not address the second half of my question, (slightly reformatted here as...)

Is the sinusoidal pattern the best and only possible outcome with trough coating?
Or can it be eliminated with more skill and or tighter controls?

I did find the answer embedded in an earlier post:

Of course this also would require an upgrade in the pumping system and the film transport system to eliminate that pattern in the attached scan.

So no, you seem to agree that good results are possible with trough coating and that the sinusodial pattern you showed us represents atypical results that should not be expected when things are set up well.

 

[bjdejong]

On this topic there is also an interesting thread on the Leica forum.

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/film-forum/164506-what-moves-kodak-can-we-expect.html

Cheers,

Barend Jan

 

[Harry Lime]

You know... in the year 2000, all the computers will go haywire and destroy our technology infrastructure.

Good thing all of my negatives are analog and not living on a hard drive...

 

[railwayman3]

Only PE can defend or victimize Kodak, lol, hey, they got what they wanted, drop out of the film market smoothly and if possible victims of something...
Perez got what he deserved and wished for years, Kodak is a victim of Kodak policy, nothing else.
The only ones needed are the ones commited to film, those who aren't, goodbye and good luck.

Support Ilford!

Absolutely! The sooner we support Ilford and the smaller makers, the better.
I really don't see why we need spend any more time on Kodak. Sorry.