Today I was shopping at ars-imago and I stumbled upon this:
http://www.ars-imago.ch/imago320blackwhitefilm13536-p-15274.html
They are offering their "own" brand of film, which (their description) is not a new emulsion but not currently on the market.
What's up lately? It seems that private-label films like this are popping out quite often this year - is there a huge collection of forgotten mater rolls around the world? Or people are cleaning their cellars? Or is it possible that they actually had it coated for them? I thought I would be quite expensive to do a custom coating run (and finishing, and everything). I dropped them an email as I am curious...
Do you mean this here ?View attachment 191433
FPP to me is the most worst group of guys in film business I personaly know.
Better make business with our fallen chineese comrades.
with regards
For example re-purposed surveillance film may exhibit higher than normal contrast and may be a challenge to work with.
Yes - you are right - there is no hint that is an Agfa film.There is no hint at all that this an Agfa film.
Is it a new film?
No, it is not a new emulsion, but it is a film that is not presently on the market. We have used an existing emulsion, tested and studied it in order to determine which ISO and development times guarantee the best results.
I am a little intrigued by the name on the box Eastman XX film. I days of past, no make that decades ago, around 1962-3 I did use Eastman KODAK XX film which was 200ASA (ISO) and used to buy it in bulk from certain suppliers in London that specialised in out of date ex military materials. It was a truly dreadful film! It had a heavy base fog and grain so large you could almost see it before printing. If it is the same film it is going to be useless even at $5 a pop.
I shoot a lot of XX also. I find it to be a nice looking film though not as good for huge subject brightness ranges. The grain is fine and it's pretty reasonable if bought in large bulk. I buy it directly from Kodak at 400' for 250.00 and 15.00 shipping.It was out of date you would would expect some fog. I have used Double XX 5222 for several years and find it to be an excellent film. However you get what you pay for. There are several sites that sell it on the web either as bulk or in cassettes. Try a roll or two and see if you like it now. BTW Kodak rates the RMS granularity at 14 (very fine), finer than that of Tri-X.
Me too. I value predictability and consistency. I shoot Delta 100/400 in bulk spools. A 36 exposure roll runs about $3.50, which is cheaper than all of this rebranded stuff you know nothing about. I have had my bulk loader since the mid-1970s, so it is fully depreciated. Of course, some people like the mystique of shooting film nobody has ever heard of, as if that has some redeeming value.I am happy with Kodak and Ilford. My photographs are valuable to me so I stick with those two. If you want to support others please feel free to do so.
Today I was shopping at ars-imago and I stumbled upon this:
http://www.ars-imago.ch/imago320blackwhitefilm13536-p-15274.html
They are offering their "own" brand of film, which (their description) is not a new emulsion but not currently on the market.
What's up lately? It seems that private-label films like this are popping out quite often this year - is there a huge collection of forgotten mater rolls around the world? Or people are cleaning their cellars? Or is it possible that they actually had it coated for them? I thought I would be quite expensive to do a custom coating run (and finishing, and everything). I dropped them an email as I am curious...
Agfa film is (was?) all surveillance right?
5222 is a good example to be more precisly Pioneer - of cause this film is no scratch. Not because it is a Kodak film more because it is a real nice emulsion with a good tonal range.You sure will agree and whom I am talking this.You have obviously had a bad experience with the Film Photography Project Trendland and there is nothing I can do about that. But I have been buying film of various kinds from them for years exactly because they re-spool films for formats I like to shoot. I have also purchased other films from them as well, such as 5222 that they have nicely re-spooled onto a reel I can easily use in my bulk film loader. l don't buy a lot because they are a bit expensive for me, but I do buy some from time to time because I like the service they provide. I have yet to run into a situation such as the one you are describing. If they are selling outdated film then it should be described as such. If they are not doing so then you have an honest problem and it should be handled directly with them. If you want to tell the people on this forum which film you bought that was outdated, that is great. But to just run them down for the fun of it is not good.
As for the rest of this thread, speculating about what film Imago may be selling under their own brand is fine. It is always interesting. But using that speculation as an opportunity to run down everyone who sells film whose company name doesn't start with "K" or "I" is BS.
And I am sure I would buy film from the Chinese, fallen or otherwise, if they were selling something I found interesting. I buy stuff from just about everyone else, why not them. In fact, if they started spooling up 620 film I'm sure I would buy some from them.
I find it odd that several of you take it for granted that this film is relabeled Foma Retropan 320, given this text on the product page:
That is exact the issue of coming neart to the origin of this film - the OP ask about.
Yes you are right Retro 320 is still offered from others.
And IMAGO manufacturers stated it is a Film out of production.
Conclusions ?????
(The more simple way would be the manufacturer stated clear what film it is from origin.)
Conclusions?????
So it don't get together Retropan320 soft is still in programm this IMAGO film comes from a film "out of production"
But if Foma Retropan320 is out of production (some dealers have it nevertheless in program) it would come together.
If I would be Foma I would say to IMAGO:
HERE ARE SOME MASTERROLLS - IT IS OUT OF PRODUCTION BUT I WILL NOT ALLOWE YOU TO STATE THIS FILM IS FROM US.
WE WILL STATE THIS TO THE RIGHT TIME WE HAVE TO DECIDE.
.........
I did not speculate this is the possible true but it would make sence.
If you want to know exactly ask the manufacturers.
No wonder about they will state : " We can't say"
with regards
That sure sounds like the old Kodak Super XX film that I did NOT use (before 1952-63). Before the removal of the "safety factor", it was rated at 100 ASA. At that time we had Verichrome/later Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, and Panatomic X films, which I used. .......Regards! (Typo: 1962-63)I am a little intrigued by the name on the box Eastman XX film. I days of past, no make that decades ago, around 1962-3 I did use Eastman KODAK XX film which was 200ASA (ISO) and used to buy it in bulk from certain suppliers in London that specialised in out of date ex military materials. It was a truly dreadful film! It had a heavy base fog and grain so large you could almost see it before printing. If it is the same film it is going to be useless even at $5 a pop.
I suppose you could always fix the entire roll without developing it and reclaim the silver
I mean current Affairs in Belgium, only microfilm and surveillance remain?No, Agfa made all kind of films you could imagine.
(Except for hassle-free instant film, though they kind of invented it.)
Agfa never offered more than two surveillance films the same time. One even was just a consumer emulsion on PET base.
5222 is a good example to be more precisly Pioneer - of cause this film is no scratch. Not because it is a Kodak film more because it is a real nice emulsion with a good tonal range.You sure will agree and whom I am talking this.
But also remember bulk 5222 from Kodak Motion Pictures.Do you remember the cheapness? And now ? FPP double the price. May be I am bad informed but did not FPP bought the last batches of Kodak SW Cinefilm to offer it soon later high priced?
Well - I am bad informed (checked it meanwile so 5222 is still avaible from Kodak) ....????........ok this is a bad situation now to me. Perhaps I should better inform about the whole program of FPP .... I just remember expired color films long long discontinued from them.
Perhaps the guys from this company are not sooo. ...bad?
But I am able to change my mind.
At last it is a little expensive (just spooling the film) but from your experience it is a service you will pay for.
.....we all can learn from failures in behavior. Hope we can ...
with regards
PS : Sorry about statement : "bad guys"
I read Ko.Fe.'s post with interest but one question arose in my mind. If you buy master rolls and assuming that when you do the "master" asks no questions of you, isn't the maker's name on the film? This would certainly seem to be the case with Ilford and Kodak but other film makers may not put their names on the edges. If they don't and don't mind someone buying say a 10,000 feet roll then rebadging is certainly possible but what are the facts about this.
Secondly it appears that this film is yet to be processed by anyone in this thread so presumably we don't know what will appear on the edges. If for instance Foma doesn't bother to mark its film and is happy to sell master rolls to Mr X then it would appear to run the real danger of Mr X selling the same film re-badged at possibly a lower price.
This behaviour on the part of a recognised film maker resembles the missionary's action in the joke: The missionary, knowing the tribe who has captured him will deliver one swift blow to instantly kill him because they want his skin to make their canoes, produces a knife and proceeds to stab himself repeatedly unto death, crying " you not going to make me into a canoe"
pentaxuser
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?