I knew exactly what you meant from the context in which you said it.It's not a re-badged film.
It's just a figure of speech...life is too short to spend time arguing over semantics don't you think?but I still want to know why it is "the real deal"?
An additional tip. Surveillance films have no anti-halation coating. Avoid shooting towards the sun and bright lights as they will produce a halo. Some people like the effect while others find it distracting.
some films -- foma, for one -- claim that they coat film the old fashioned way, with thicker single layer of emulsion, i think, instead of thinner multiple layers? Or T-cell technology?but I still want to know why it is "the real deal"?
The specifications say that the film is on a transparent Estar base. I quote from the seller'"The emulsion is coated onto a transparent polyester base providing excellent dimensional stability." "Born out of discontinued surveillance film made from [sic] Agfa." Which means that anything that is back lit or contains a point light source such street lights, etc are going to have halos. You may notice that most of the sample photos are taken on overcast days. This is not an accident. If you look carefully at those few with back lighting you will see halation.
Considering that the film is being re-purposed the asking price is certainly no bargain. I easily found fresh Kodak 400TX for $70 for 10 rolls. Ilford HP5+ would be even cheaper. On all these so called deals you have to really read the fine print.
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?