The Price of 8x10 Color Film Out of Control

[MattKing]

Up to 87 I see.

 

[138S]

Among other things you have no comprehensive how nonlinear color film is and how interlinked the color crossover is.

Sorry for the off-topic.

As "you have no comprehensive" is a direct personal interpelation I feel free to explain that it's the counter than what you say:

Both the Light Spectrums coming from the scenes and the Tansmission Spectrums of developed color film, in every spot, are elements from an Space of Funtions, but those Spaces of Functions have different characteristics:

> The light reaching film has arbitrary Spectrums that can have any shape.

> The Transmission Spectrums of a developed CN negative don't have arbitrary shapes, each channel has a particular shape depending on the particular dyes and for each exposure level in the channel), so colors in the developed negative can be mapped in a XYZ 3 dimensions table because shapes are not arbitrary, for each X-Y-Z exposure you have particular transmission spectrum that it's determined in its shape, so you have a Bijection between the X-Y-Z exposure values and a non arbitrary set of funtions (transmission spectrums).

In that demonstration (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...lm-out-of-control.173528/page-12#post-2261116) a "blackbox" concept is used to not have to explain that spectrums in the developed negative are not arbitrary, requiring only 3 Real dimensions to be mapped rather than being of true spectral complexity.

That demonstration was in an exam I made about color science, the involved college professor is a prominent scientist in this area. NC/VC was not the first time color films were sold in several flavors by only changing the final dyes, while keeping equal the rest.

What I'm saying is that Spectral Sensitivity is the key factor, while the effect of final dyes can be easily edited with the right digital tools. Any advanced colorist technician will tell you the same.

A wise person would have backed out of a discussion which is over their head; you are not and will not. Sadly for the Photrio.

I answer you in PM this direct interpelation.

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah. The math is all there. It's simple, just like starting a colony on Mars. You're not telling anyone anything new. It's what you leave out that's the problem.

 

[Lachlan Young]

What I'm saying is that Spectral Sensitivity is the key factor, while the effect of final dyes can be easily edited with the right digital tools. Any advanced colorist technician will tell you the same.

Only in the sense of the difference between a tungsten balanced and daylight balanced film. For obvious reasons a tungsten balanced film has suppressed red sensitivity, whereas a daylight/ equal energy illuminant balanced film has roughly equal sensitivities between each sensitised emulsion set. If I were to enable the green sensitive emulsion (for example) to produce more colour coupler, DIR, DIAR couplers relative to exposure and the other layers to remain more restrained, you (as a casual observer) might think that the film was actually more sensitive to green. But you'd be wrong. It's merely exaggerating the 'green' through manipulation of couplers. You are thinking about this from a mentalité which apparently cannot comprehend the fluid & manipulable relationship between exposure and dye formation. Kodak have been able to computer model the behaviour of dye couplers etc since the 1980's and there are numerous patents that look at the ways computer steps could be used to manipulate contrast etc. If there was an easy and technologically straightforward way to have made NC look like VC via computer post-production they'd have done it. Instead, Ektar provided an all-round better replacement for the VC films relative to how they were actually being used, & the two new Portras were able to offer a choice of colour balances and two (more restrained) saturation choices, along with the more saturated Portra 800 rounding out the range. Looking at the range of materials from this standpoint makes considerably more sense than your rambling attempts at propping up your claims of Kodak etc persecuting you.

I'm now pretty convinced that you really don't understand the really quite complex steps needed to accurately asses the CIELAB values of the dyes formed, both individually and with their interactions as part of the built emulsion. It is very considerably more complex than the simple spectrophotometric assays you are talking about. Like most technicians you want everything reduced to a set of 'in-spec' or 'out of spec' numbers without understanding that it is all about value judgments and incredibly complex maths, not a set of CIELAB numbers and a look-up table.

 

[138S]

If there was an easy and technologically straightforward way to have made NC look like VC via computer post-production they'd have done it. Instead, Ektar provided an all-round better replacement for the VC films relative to how they were actually being used

Latchlan, Latchlan... Ektar and VC cannot be perfectly matched because having different Spectral Sensitivities.

Please read it again, those films that can be digitally matched well have Same Spectral Sensitivity,

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...lm-out-of-control.173528/page-12#post-2261116
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...lm-out-of-control.173528/page-14#post-2262250

Conceptually the final dyes work like a "3D LUT" that would be very useful for a canned look in optic printing, once image is digitally processed VC not necessary if having NC, for this reason (among others) Kodak discontinued VC, as in the digital minilabs you get the same (from NC or Portra 160) with a bare preset.

That demonstration in those posts are like 2+2 = 4, plain math, I made an effort to post the explanation of a very complex concept in the simplest way possible, still you need to now what is a Bijection, a Surjection and an Space of Functions, concepts it looks you should understand, but if you don't catch it then I can't do more, I leave it here. We posted too much in that OOT.

___


Let's return to sheet price in the post COVID-19 new world. Things are to change a lot in film market, we may need a cold start for the film flourishment.

 

[AgX]

This is a 100% analog thread, discussing the the price of large-format colour film.
But instead scanning techniques are being discussed.

 

[138S]

This is a 100% analog thread, discussing the the price of large-format colour film.
But instead scanning techniques are being discussed.

true, and out of topic, anyway some interseting intrinsics of film have been posted, like the fact that NC/VC had the same Spectral Sensitivity but not in the Portra 160 vs 400 case, this is not often debated, I guess it would be interesting to move all those to another thread.

Let's go to the sheet film price...
____

Citing Mr Shanebrook:


Optimum manufacturing of black-and-white and color photographic film on different supports requires manufacturing customization. The physical characteristics of 7-mil ESTAR, 5 mil acetate, and 3.2 mil acetate are quite different. ESTAR absorbs much less water than acetate. The static and stretch characteristics are also much different. This requires different coating machine conveyance settings (speed, tension, alignment correction etc.), chill box (temperature profile), and coating machine drying settings (temperature profile, air flow, tension etc.). The backings on each of these film types are also different usually requiring machine changes. When transitioning between support types it is necessary to let the machine reach a new steady-state. The film made during this transition is always discarded. Also, for different supports the coated layers emulsion formulations may be modified for adhesion, over-coat formulation, and occasionally for other customer use reasons.


These adjustments are determined by using statistical design of experiments. The adjustment results in consistent films with very low product waste. It also results in film with characteristics that are suitable for the intended use of the film i.e. retouching on sheet film. Another example is 5-mil acetate being transported through a camera at high speeds. The drying will determine the location of the matte in the SOC.


The same is true for finishing operations. Different slitting and chopping equipment set-ups are used for different films. Spooling set ups can be film specific though most films of a given size can be spooled using the same set-up. All this allows faster operations and cleaner film.


The components and the processes used for each film are refined for the film that is to be produced. Custom operations are best. “One-size-fits-all” will reduce the performance of the film and/or increase waste.


Robert L. Shanebrook


To me, regarding what we debated about "special modifications" in the LF emulsion this is the interesting part:

"Also, for different supports the coated layers emulsion formulations may be modified for adhesion, over-coat formulation, and occasionally for other customer use reasons."

The modifications for the adhesion can only be in the subbing layer, or in the viscosity if the machine runs with lower web speed (temperature, more water), I see absolutely no significative extra manufacturing cost related to the LF emulsion. But we may debate if other concerns beyond "emulsion modifications" are a justifiction for that x2 price compared to rolls.

To me it's about the manufacture's capability to be efficient in products produced in lower amounts and the most important, about marketing policy, what do you think?

 

[Lachlan Young]

Latchlan, Latchlan... Ektar and VC cannot be perfectly matched because having different Spectral Sensitivities.

Please read it again, those films that can be digitally matched well have Same Spectral Sensitivity,

https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...lm-out-of-control.173528/page-12#post-2261116
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threa...lm-out-of-control.173528/page-14#post-2262250

Conceptually the final dyes work like a "3D LUT" that would be very useful for a canned look in optic printing, once image is digitally processed VC not necessary if having NC, for this reason (among others) Kodak discontinued VC, as in the digital minilabs you get the same (from NC or Portra 160) with a bare preset.

That demonstration in those posts are like 2+2 = 4, plain math, I made an effort to post the explanation of a very complex concept in the simplest way possible, still you need to now what is a Bijection, a Surjection and an Space of Functions, concepts it looks you should understand, but if you don't catch it then I can't do more, I leave it here. We posted too much in that OOT.

___


Let's return to sheet price in the post COVID-19 new world. Things are to change a lot in film market, we may need a cold start for the film flourishment.

If you actually did a little thinking and research instead of loudly demanding we follow your narrow ideological prescriptivism that's been founded on a lack of useful experience, you might actually notice that all the NC/ VC Portra films had essentially identical spectral sensitivity. The 160/400 NC and 160/400 VC film pairs also had matched colour contrasts. That the current Portra 160, 400, 800 and Ektar have differences in spectral sensitivities, colour balances and colour contrasts is important because it strongly suggests a divergence away from the model you are claiming towards one where each film has its own more distinctive characteristics/ personality. The spectral differences you are seeing are largely to do with ensuring that certain skintones etc do not suffer distortions from the greater warmth or saturation of certain films - and that slight variances in lightsource colour won't cause seriously untoward colour distortions because of a lack of sensitivity to specific spectra (fluorescent tubes for example) - note Ron's comment that "We tailored all of our color films to have spectral sensitivities to cover all possible skin tones from freckle faced redheads to African Americans, with teenagers with severe acne in between". Note too that he makes no distinction in colour sensitivity between films that you claimed earlier are meant solely for landscape or solely for portrait use.

More to the point, have you actually used any of these Kodak neg films other than a small amount of Portra 160?

true, and out of topic, anyway some interseting intrinsics of film have been posted, like the fact that NC/VC had the same Spectral Sensitivity but not in the Portra 160 vs 400 case, this is not often debated, I guess it would be interesting to move all those to another thread.

Let's go to the sheet film price...
____

Citing Mr Shanebrook:


Optimum manufacturing of black-and-white and color photographic film on different supports requires manufacturing customization. The physical characteristics of 7-mil ESTAR, 5 mil acetate, and 3.2 mil acetate are quite different. ESTAR absorbs much less water than acetate. The static and stretch characteristics are also much different. This requires different coating machine conveyance settings (speed, tension, alignment correction etc.), chill box (temperature profile), and coating machine drying settings (temperature profile, air flow, tension etc.). The backings on each of these film types are also different usually requiring machine changes. When transitioning between support types it is necessary to let the machine reach a new steady-state. The film made during this transition is always discarded. Also, for different supports the coated layers emulsion formulations may be modified for adhesion, over-coat formulation, and occasionally for other customer use reasons.


These adjustments are determined by using statistical design of experiments. The adjustment results in consistent films with very low product waste. It also results in film with characteristics that are suitable for the intended use of the film i.e. retouching on sheet film. Another example is 5-mil acetate being transported through a camera at high speeds. The drying will determine the location of the matte in the SOC.


The same is true for finishing operations. Different slitting and chopping equipment set-ups are used for different films. Spooling set ups can be film specific though most films of a given size can be spooled using the same set-up. All this allows faster operations and cleaner film.


The components and the processes used for each film are refined for the film that is to be produced. Custom operations are best. “One-size-fits-all” will reduce the performance of the film and/or increase waste.


Robert L. Shanebrook


To me, regarding what we debated about "special modifications" in the LF emulsion this is the interesting part:

"Also, for different supports the coated layers emulsion formulations may be modified for adhesion, over-coat formulation, and occasionally for other customer use reasons."

The modifications for the adhesion can only be in the subbing layer, or in the viscosity if the machine runs with lower web speed (temperature, more water), I see absolutely no significative extra manufacturing cost related to the LF emulsion. But we may debate if other concerns beyond "emulsion modifications" are a justifiction for that x2 price compared to rolls.

To me it's about the manufacture's capability to be efficient in products produced in lower amounts and the most important, about marketing policy, what do you think?

Given that it may take a 6-figure sum to do a coating run at full scale not including full scale test runs - read this and understand the consequences of changing the substrate. It is non-trivial.

 

[laser]

I don't care to join into an argument but I will make a few comments.

I expect a large portion of the cost of sheet film is the small volume. There are two conflicting forces: the precise and accurate control of Kodak's B38 emulsion making and coating is required to obtain the highest physical and sensitometric quality. Secondly, the very small sales volume drives up the costs. The choice is to pass on the costs or don't offer the products.

The Kodak Alaris product managers have several decades of experience in the film business and are very familiar with Worldwide customer (dealers, photographers, labs, and image users) needs. They also have an equally long experience with film manufacturing. They are the best advocates that photographers could imagine.

In "Making KODAK Film" I describe some of the effort that was used to provide the ability to produce pleasing flesh over a wide range. The spectral sensitivity and spectral density of PORTRA 160NC and 160VC were the same, by design. The same is true of 400NC and 400VC. Portra 800 is close but somewhat different.

The combination of spectral characteristics of the films and the spectral characteristics of Kodak PORTRA and SUPRA Paper of 1998-2003 were co-optimized by design. This allowed all Portra films to be printed on the same channel. Even the most particular professional labs Worldwide were able to print the PORTRA Film Family on the same channel with very low levels of printing waste. The common goal of pleasing flesh and one printing channel was the driving force for PORTRA Film design. The PORTRA Team was very proud of the performance. I and most of my colleagues are now retired.

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

 

[Sirius Glass]

I don't care to join into an argument but I will make a few comments.

I expect a large portion of the cost of sheet film is the small volume. There are two conflicting forces: the precise and accurate control of Kodak's B38 emulsion making and coating is required to obtain the highest physical and sensitometric quality. Secondly, the very small sales volume drives up the costs. The choice is to pass on the costs or don't offer the products.

The Kodak Alaris product managers have several decades of experience in the film business and are very familiar with Worldwide customer (dealers, photographers, labs, and image users) needs. They also have an equally long experience with film manufacturing. They are the best advocates that photographers could imagine.

In "Making KODAK Film" I describe some of the effort that was used to provide the ability to produce pleasing flesh over a wide range. The spectral sensitivity and spectral density of PORTRA 160NC and 160VC were the same, by design. The same is true of 400NC and 400VC. Portra 800 is close but somewhat different.

The combination of spectral characteristics of the films and the spectral characteristics of Kodak PORTRA and SUPRA Paper of 1998-2003 were co-optimized by design. This allowed all Portra films to be printed on the same channel. Even the most particular professional labs Worldwide were able to print the PORTRA Film Family on the same channel with very low levels of printing waste. The common goal of pleasing flesh and one printing channel was the driving force for PORTRA Film design. The PORTRA Team was very proud of the performance. I and most of my colleagues are now retired.

www.makingKODAKfilm.com

The spectral sensitivity and spectral density of PORTRA 160NC and 160VC were the same, by design. The same is true of 400NC and 400VC. Portra 800 is close but somewhat different. <== That is my experience and what is published by Kodak because it was designed and formulated that way. To state otherwise is an uneducated scientific wild assed guess. For 135 and 120 UC 400 has the same spectral sensitivity and spectral density as Portra 400, 400NC and 400 VC.

 

[138S]

the precise and accurate control of Kodak's B38 emulsion making and coating is required to obtain the highest physical and sensitometric quality. Secondly, the very small sales volume drives up the costs.

Ok, but the same the emulsion is made also for roll films, the single emulsion Kodak makes for LF exclusively is TXP, so it looks that for the rest there is no significative additional cost in the LF emulsion, compared to rolls.

The choice is to pass on the costs or don't offer the products.

Well, we have ilford offering sheets and charging only 120% price of rolls, with Kodak we have a 200% or more. Clearly ilford is not to loss money in the LF product range.

Remarkably we also have Foma, see this, today Fotoimpex:

Fomapan 100 - 135/36 3.8€
Fomapan 100 - 8x10" per sheet 2.38€


Kodak Portra 160 - 135/36 9.1€
Kodak Portra 160 - 8x10" per sheet 27.5€


Being the Fomapan 100 sheet 2.38€ retail price, it would be totally surprising that the Kodak's overcost of coating sheets instead rolls was higher than 2.38€, but look, in the EU difference is 18.4€ more expensive.

This policy simply kills 8x10" CN photography in the UE... This is not a kill, it's an overkill. How many boxes are they to sell? 15 boxes in a year in all the EU?


Western countries now are to face the deep impact of the COVID-19, we may expect a GDP loss beyond 20%. In XXI history there will be pre and post COVID-19 ages. Our world is to change in several ways, it won't easy.

It is the first time I see three Universal Heliars 42cm for sell at Ebay, I guess it never happened before.

To me film manufacturers have to react, because not only film flourishment is at risk, products that are artificially overpriced may simply disapear.

 

[Sal Santamaura]

If anyone is still interested in feeding the troll, observe that it even argues with Bob. Perhaps that'll wake you up and motivate use of the ignore function.