"I've never been so happy to be wrong in my entire life." Don't recall where I heard that...
Tetenal's Innovation for the future
-
A
- Thread starter fs999
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Want to Buy For parts/broken nikon bodies and lenses
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale FS: Beseler Printmaker 35 condenser head, Beseler 50mm lens and other parts
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: (broken) Horseman 6x12 Back
- Started by dirkfletcher
-
For Sale FS: Tamron 150mm f/6.3 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale FS: Royal Soft Focus 150mm f/4.5 Lens
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
Leaf shutters are currently used in medium format lenses for the Hasselblad H system cameras and the PhaseOne XF series cameras.
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
No, not at all.
Please look at it just as some additional information you are benefitting from. Photrio is a place we all can learn from each other.
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
These two are interesting. I really like what you guys are doing and hope you are able to release Polywarmtone to market soon as well as having availability of MCC/MCP and films (CHSII). The scala kit is something interesting and IMO, related to the topic, anything that makes C41 and specially E6 kits more manageable is a good approach.
My E6 is in the freezer but when it comes down to own developing, the 2.5L are too much. Cinestill's (and Arista in US) 1L packaging is good for amateurs who do not shoot that much. For B&W this format would be beneficial in the age of film fogging CT scanners, to develop in location.
Oh, and speaking of Cinestill in this thread (recently) about innovation -- didn't they just release a three-way E-6 kit? Three different first developers to produce tungsten balance with daylight film, normal balance (i.e. regular E-6 first dev), and one that flattens contrast a little to record more dynamic range.
No. That kit does not produce "tungsten balance" in the meaning of daylight film given tungsten film spectral-sensitivity. What they show looks like daylight film having got a strong blue cast. To the effect that the film looks like tungsten film exposed in daylight.
However, that can be achieved by filters to more control. Though their processing will not loose film speed as filtering would do.
The wording on their site and in their data sheet at several places though is puzzling.
Only at their blog they state that they want to mimic E-6 Tungsten film exposed in daylight (which they consider the standard way) by procesing E-6 Daylight film in their "Tungsten" developer.
But isn't it great when you lose the battle, but the result is actually good news?
It is indeed...
OP
OP
You forgot Ortho Plus
Thank you for the informations. I must say that what I regret most of those abandoned new emulsions is Astia 100F...
You forgot Ortho Plus
Thank you for the informations. I must say that what I regret most of those abandoned new emulsions is Astia 100F...
Concerning Ortho Plus:
It was with intention to keep it out of the list. Because the topic has been "new emulsions", not additional formats offered. Ortho Plus has been produced as sheet film for more than 20 years, and then recently 135 and 120 formats have been added (which is of course very good).
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
We have some offers for those who want to develop on location: ADOX FX-39 II in the small 100ml bottle:
https://www.fotoimpex.com/chemistry/adox-fx-39-type-ii-100ml-concentrate.html
And Adofix P II with CAPTURA:
https://www.fotoimpex.com/chemistry/adox-adofix-p-ii-powder-fixer-to-make-1000-ml.html
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
Was Acros II a new emulsion but just one that replicated exactly what the original Acros did - at least this is what I think Henning Serger said in his report
On that basis were all the emulsions in the Ilford HP range new each time the name was changed by a new figure?
On the new or not as the case may be, Ilford Ortho Plus cassette and roll film, it sounds as if all Ilford had to do was run the same film as in sheet form through a 35mm and 120 slitters then assemble it into cassettes. I had just got the impression from Ilford that it wasn't as simple as that but this may be me thinking too simplistically.
It can get difficult at times to separate real change from marketing hype
pentaxuser
On that basis were all the emulsions in the Ilford HP range new each time the name was changed by a new figure?
On the new or not as the case may be, Ilford Ortho Plus cassette and roll film, it sounds as if all Ilford had to do was run the same film as in sheet form through a 35mm and 120 slitters then assemble it into cassettes. I had just got the impression from Ilford that it wasn't as simple as that but this may be me thinking too simplistically.
It can get difficult at times to separate real change from marketing hype
pentaxuser
From what I understood, Acros II was a significant redesign because of the new standard reason for discontinuation -- failure of a raw material supplier. The FP and HP range, AFAIK, have in fact been significantly upgraded emulsions each time Ilford has changed the designation. And you can't just cut sheet film base to 120 and 35mm -- the base is progressively thinner as the film gets smaller. That then requires changes in at least the subbing and overcoats and AHU and anti-curl (which last isn't even needed in sheet film). Even if the emulsion is identical, it's a new film by the time you scale 35mm up to 4x5 or 4x5 down to 35mm.
Thanks Donald. It is as I said difficult to define what constitutes a new film but on balance I agree that Ilford Ortho Plus in roll film is new. In fact you might correctly argue that any change to emulsion constitutes a new film
So it would appear that Acros II is a new emulsion in terms of its constituents but Fuji were able to make it identical to original Acros. So in a sense new for Fuji but the same for users
I just get a little concerned when there appears posts from one party that indicates there is only one correct definition of new and it is that delivered by, in this case, ADOX. Most things in life are nuanced but at times there appears to be no room for discussion on such matters.
I can only hope that where there is room for discussion there is a general acceptance that all wisdom is not in the possession of only one party
pentaxuser
So it would appear that Acros II is a new emulsion in terms of its constituents but Fuji were able to make it identical to original Acros. So in a sense new for Fuji but the same for users
I just get a little concerned when there appears posts from one party that indicates there is only one correct definition of new and it is that delivered by, in this case, ADOX. Most things in life are nuanced but at times there appears to be no room for discussion on such matters.
I can only hope that where there is room for discussion there is a general acceptance that all wisdom is not in the possession of only one party
pentaxuser
The cheapest H system (body/back/lens) I could find is 26 thousand USD. There are certainly people who can spend this type of money, and they might even require it for their jobs-- but I'm not one of them. That's what I spent on my last car (new).
I'd also be curious what their 100mp image looks like compared to a well executed / scanned 4x5 image, which according to a previous thread, should easily be able to hit 400mp (at a "mere" 4800 ppi). My entire 4x5 system, with 4 lenses, a spot meter, the camera (Chamonix), a tripod, film holders, and a backpack to put it all in, cost about a quarter of the least expensive H series lens I could find.
So-- I will rephrase: No one is making leaf shutters for enthusiast level cameras. Which is an area as you previously stated, with potential for growth right now. I'm not saying the technology doesn't exist-- I'm saying no one is making them. Granted, I have a 106 year old Compur shutter that was recently serviced, and works like a champ, so the old shutters, if properly cared for, will last a long time, but without manufacturer support, the chances of repairing an old shutter will decrease at an exponential rate.
That is indeed the case as our industry experts here like Ron Mowrey, Adox, Ilford, H. Serger have explained many times. I've got the same information when I visited the former ORWO plant in Wolfen. There is an extremely interesting film museum now, where you get tours with guide and in insight in former (now outdated) film production. They even have the coating machine there on which the first Agfa color film was coated. very fascinating. I can highly recommend that museum.
Here I want to disagree: A different subbing doesn't make it a different film. The characteristics of the emulsion define a film. As for the example here: No matter whether if you use Ilford Ortho in 35mm, 120 or sheet, the look you get is the same (despite the format related differences of course). I know for sure as I have used it in all formats.
Therefore what Team Adox has written above is absolutely correct.
What a BS. Team Adox has not at all written that.
As so often you are misinterpreting posts and implying things no one has really said. And then even decry those you have misinterpreted. A very disgusting manner.
I am really thankful that we have people with expert knowledge from the industry here, from whom we all can learn so much.
New Some interesting things on their website. I'd definitely consider tablet chemicals.
Only subbing is dependand on base m,aterial. Modern base does not even take a sub-layer. AHU and overcoat are not dependand on base.
That are the total system costs including digital backs. But we have talked about film and medium format lenses with leaf shutters, which cost of course only a fraction of that.
They are made. New lenses with leaf shutters can be used on used Hasselblad H1, H2, H2F or used / new H5 / H6 cameras. Used H1 / H2 cameras are often very reasonable priced on the used market - cheaper than the popular Contax 645 for example.
On the LF market we currently still have the situation that there are enough used lenses available at reasonable prices. And LF is very small niche market compared to 35mm and 120 film. Lots of people forget that we are just in the beginning of a film resurgeance. A huge market decline over a time span of about 15 years cannot be compensated in only 3-5 years. That is impossible. We have to be patient. It is a very long run......if there will be enough demand for new LF lenses in 5 or in 10 years, we don't know. But we are optimistic that they will come back.
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
That is correct. There have to be some adjustments made for different formats because of different film bases. But the film characteristic in itself remains unchanged, or the differences are so small that they are not really relevant or visible. If you use Provia 100F in 135, 120 or sheets, or Delta 100 in 120 or sheets, or Ilford Ortho in 135 or 120, or Portra 160 in 135 or sheets.......(just as some examples), you have the needed film-look consistency across all formats.
ADOX - Innovation in Analog Photography.
Not for the first time, I'm confused. Has Tetenal ceased making liquid C41 kits? Having just mixed a fresh litre of photo juice yesterday, I hope not.
As I understand it, these kit were originally produced as photojournalist chemistry, so sweaty photographers could develop colour film in the sink of their mosquito infested hotel rooms, far from anywhere. When labs with temperature controlled machinery were on every city street corner, there was no other reason for them. Now colour film development inhabits the same commercial space as hot metal typesetting and photogravure, C41 kits are all many of us have. Suboptimal certainly, but better than nothing. Prompt and careful users can squeeze lots of films out of a single kit, so home development is economic, too.
If there's a soluble pill for home colour neg development, sign me up.
As I understand it, these kit were originally produced as photojournalist chemistry, so sweaty photographers could develop colour film in the sink of their mosquito infested hotel rooms, far from anywhere. When labs with temperature controlled machinery were on every city street corner, there was no other reason for them. Now colour film development inhabits the same commercial space as hot metal typesetting and photogravure, C41 kits are all many of us have. Suboptimal certainly, but better than nothing. Prompt and careful users can squeeze lots of films out of a single kit, so home development is economic, too.
If there's a soluble pill for home colour neg development, sign me up.
No really. I think they were produced to please the ever growing amateurs' needs of the time.
I think you could make an argument that it was some of both. It was the sweaty PJs who were the main market for monobaths, before color was thing in newspapers, no question, and the enthusiasts who have become the comeback market for that niche product, but I knew people who were developing and printing color at home in the mid-1990s, when you could literally get your prints back in an hour within a fifteen minute drive from any address in the city I lived in.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |