MattKing
Moderator
Maybe because you quoted a post with off topic material ("sc***ing").
Maybe because you quoted a post with off topic material ("sc***ing").Wow. Why did my post above trigger the "offtopic digital content warning"? Grain? Ektar? WTF?
Maybe because you quoted a post with off topic material ("sc***ing").
Maybe because you quoted a post with off topic material ("sc***ing").
"digital" has been taken off the list, because of things like digital displays.
"Scan" and "Scanning" have always been there, AFAIK.
Negative films are better than reversal films in every way.
\PE, are negative films that much better than direct positive, that a "second generation" positive print (printing a negative onto a negative to obtain a positive) has finer grain and more manageable contrast than a direct positive process? I know that you weren't necessarily implying this in the above post, I'm just curious to learn if that is the case.
If I could obtain the chemicals and film to print medium format negatives onto medium format negative film to obtain a slide (such as the ECN/ECP process), I would, but as it stands E6 is the most reasonable way to get a medium format slide. Despite inherent disadvantages of a direct positive process, until it's more viable to make slides from negs, I think E6 still has a place and I will miss it when it's gone. I'm doing my best to keep it alive -- I bought 60 rolls of fuji E6 and I sent fujifilm canada a message complimenting their reversal films. I got an email back saying that my positive comments were on the top of a list of comments forwarded to senior management! I know it's naive to think I made a difference, but it's all I can do. Folks, if you like slides, forget about kodachrome, buy, shoot and process lots of E6 and thank Fuji for continuing to provide it!
\
Ferrania will have E6 available not before long, and im betting that Kodak will be looking into E6 again seriously, as they are investing heavily on a new super8 camera, and ALOT of S8 shooters prefer E6, yes some professionals will use vision3, but it cant be projected, unless an ECP print is made.
AFAIK, the film cartridges sold will include processing and not only do you get your film back, but also a scan. Print not exactly needed and E6 shooters don't seem to be their target group.
PE, are negative films that much better than direct positive, that a "second generation" positive print (printing a negative onto a negative to obtain a positive) has finer grain and more manageable contrast than a direct positive process? I know that you weren't necessarily implying this in the above post, I'm just curious to learn if that is the case.
If I could obtain the chemicals and film to print medium format negatives onto medium format negative film to obtain a slide (such as the ECN/ECP process), I would, but as it stands E6 is the most reasonable way to get a medium format slide. Despite inherent disadvantages of a direct positive process, until it's more viable to make slides from negs, I think E6 still has a place and I will miss it when it's gone. I'm doing my best to keep it alive -- I bought 60 rolls of fuji E6 and I sent fujifilm canada a message complimenting their reversal films. I got an email back saying that my positive comments were on the top of a list of comments forwarded to senior management! I know it's naive to think I made a difference, but it's all I can do. Folks, if you like slides, forget about kodachrome, buy, shoot and process lots of E6 and thank Fuji for continuing to provide it!
The thing is that i feel that since that film is their main core business, they now can be dedicated to more R&D which they plan on doing.I wouldn't get too optimistic about any significant E6 film revival. Humpty-Dumpty showing a few cracks is one thing; but now that he has fallen off the wall, it will be an awfully hard to put him back together again. But that's a minor problem compared to the Kodachrome pipe dream. I don't anticipate Ferrania as a realistic substitute at all for the late peak-of-technology E-6 films from Kodak or Fuji. I do look forward to something interesting in its own right, with somewhat different aesthetic potential.
Well those are good points indeed, please elaborate on the costs of such chemicals, they do seem rather incomprehensible at the price you claim?Nzoomed, you are not an engineer nor are you a chemist or you would understand the problems in scaling.
Let us assume that a critical chemical is added to an emulsion at the rate of 1 mg / 10000 L of coated material at a production scale. This is not an unrealistic example BTW. On a research scale this would be about 0.01 mg per 100 ml. Lets further state that it is unstable if mixed with the emulsion for over 1 hour - again a rather realistic example.
So, how do you reliably weigh out 0.01 mg of something and add it reliably to the emulsion without error and decomposition. You see, the slower coating rate means that it must be held longer.
Now, lets further assume that this compound costs $500 /gram on the open market. Again not unrealistic. And this means $500,000 / kg of an unstable chemical. Lets assume that this chemical decomposes totally in 1 year and is sensitive to heat. Not unrealistic again. You can't use 1 kg / year but that is the least the supplier can or will make.
The example above is pretty much accurate for a good IR sensitizing dye and one which has eliminated most all IR films on the market. Those that are still there simply can't match the quality of this example.
So, you quit making IR film when the market does not allow for the use of about 1 kg of dye per year.
PE
I don't anticipate Ferrania as a realistic substitute at all for the late peak-of-technology E-6 films from Kodak or Fuji. I do look forward to something interesting in its own right, with somewhat different aesthetic potential.
That seems a very realistic expectation....Ferrania may well surprise us with the quality, but, at the least, we will have a new product to expolore the potential.
And the more we learn, from PE, of the issues and difficulties of manufacturing or reproducing products, the more obvious it seems that any film, particularly Kodachrome, can never be reproduced exactly. If, by a miracle, Kodachrome reappeared, it would be an entirely new film, which could never reproduce the exact qualities of the original.....it, too, would have a "somewhat different aesthetic potential". So let's look forward to the new Ferraniacolor, where there seems a good prospect of it being produced successfully, without a miracle being required.
Thank you PE for explaining what are the key technical issues that help us have a more accurate grasp of what is at stake here. So if people would be ready to invest large amounts of money without guaranty of profit for long enough to build and grow a market (like it is done for so many start-up companies in domains that appear promising), then it would not be impossible to do. So the key factor wouldn't be technical but based on the effectiveness of marketing. Just like Lomography and Impossible Project managed to recreate and develop a market for products that would be considered from a dead past or not worthy of being sold by traditionnal standards.
Anyway, may i ask how Lomography is getting their IR film made? Im sure they still are not selling as much as kodak did.
Well those are good points indeed, please elaborate on the costs of such chemicals, they do seem rather incomprehensible at the price you claim?
Anyway, may i ask how Lomography is getting their IR film made? Im sure they still are not selling as much as kodak did.
Do you personally have any doubts that Ferrania will be able to produce their films cost effective?
Personally if they succeed, then i feel there is no reason why Kodak or anyone else could not succeed either in a similar market.
Only time will tell, but i have full trust in Ferrania.
I assume you are talking about colour film here.There are many pigment precursors out there that are easy to turn in to dyes. Most of them have poor image stability.
PE
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?