120/220 Film for Medium Format Cameras

in requiem

Q: Which film brand do you use most often?
Fuji: 52.1%
Kodak: 26.5%
Ilford: 14.6%
Agfa: 4.6%
Konica: 1.2%
Other: 0.9%
Total Votes: 328

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 1998 
From: JDavis9077 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [KOML] Film sources

Steve - Check out Freestyle Sales Co. I've always had pretty good luck with
film, paper, etc. with them. Their web site is www.freestylesalesco.com or
call 213-660-3460 for a catalog.

Good luck.

Jeff Davis.    

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Life of film?
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 1998

Once I developed a roll of film for a friend of mine where the film
and latent images were more than 30 years old. I was amazed at how
well it came out. As long as the film has not been affected by
excessive heat and humidity, fogging of a B&W roll seems to cause just
a nominal loss of quality over time.

I have wondered what the "humidity" is inside a foil sealed film
package, and if there is any possibility of frost or condensation
inside if the roll is warmed to room temperature and then re-frozen. I
have heard of people who buy  and freeze huge quantities of a favorite
film if it is going out of production.      

From: Dave Jenkins 
Subject: Response to ISO VPS 120
Date: 1998-03-09

James Chow is lucky if Reala 120/220 is readily available where he is.  There
is still some available in the US, but it is shortdated at this point and no
more is being imported.  Fuji is really missing the boat on this one.   

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 1998 
From: Robert Claeson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: TMZ and Rodinal     

Dan Cardish [email protected] wrote_

>I have oftened wondered why more high speed films aren't made available for
>120 format, where the grain would be less of a factor.  I would love to use
>TMZ, Fuji 1600, etc. in 120 format.

Well, if you with Fuji 1600 mean Fujichrome 1600, I certainly do have some
of it in 120 format in the fridge. Also, the Kodak color neg ISO 1000 film 
(can never seem to remember its name) is also available.

Robert 

From: Bob Carpenter [email protected]
Subject: Response to Fuji Velvia question
Date: 1998-03-12

Fuji recommends rating Velvia at 40 rather than 50.
They claim it's because the 'objective' tests that
rate it at 50, as set by ISO, don't take account of
the film's incredible color saturation.  The thinner
result you get from the 1/3 stop 'overexposure' by
rating it at 40 seems better 'subjectively'.
(Fuji's web site is a mess -- I found this in their pro film
FAQ when I was trying to find reciprocity data for their
films, which I didn't, so if anyone has those, I'd be
delighted to see them -- I did find the reciprocity for
Velvia as computed at Brookings on photo.net)   

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Jaybell)
[1] Re: Rollfilm question on light damage
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998

>This may seem like a silly question

There are really no silly questions - only silly answers, and I hope this
isn't one of those!

Roll film is protected from light by being wrapped tightly around the
spoo,l wth the backing paper wrapped around the film. (On 120 film the
backing paper runs the entire lenght of the film, on 220 film the backing
paper is just taped at the beginning and end of the film, for reasons of
total thickness). 

At the top and bottom on the spool there is a black plastic disc to prevent
light egress down the sides of the roll. It is important to ensure, when
removing the film from the camera that the film is kept tightly wrapped, not
allowed to slacken, as it is just this tightness that keeps the light out.

Having said this, it is more important to load and unload rollfilm in
subdued light than 35mm film, and to store exposed rolls in a light tight
bag or container. I'm sure every medium format shooter has at some time or
other seen roll. 

I hope this answers your question...

John Bellenis Photography                             

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: ryan shaw 
[1] Re: Rollfilm question on light damage
Date: Sun Mar 15 1998   

> This may seem like a silly question but how is rollfilm protected from light
> since it is not encased like 35mm. Am trying medium format for first time
> tomorrow and wouldn't want  to damage the film while loading or extracting
> exposed film. How is the film usually turned in to the photofinisher with no
> plastic case or wrap for the exposed film? Thanks in advance!

roll film is backed with paper.  when the paper is tightly wound around
the spindle it keeps most if not all light away from the film.  the
paper also extends past the film on both ends so that you will have
several wraps of paper backing outside of the film.

it is suggested that you load and unload in dim light, although i only
do that on very special occasions.  keep that wrapper around because the
exposed film can then be placed back into the wrapper and into the box
for safety.

however, i must still note that i have loaded and unloaded roll film in
blinding light and not put it back in a wrapper and have not lost
anything up to this point.  it could happen so if you are shooting
something very important or if there is a lot of money riding on it --
be careful with your film.   

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 
From: FotoBo [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 70mm

Hi Les,

70mm emulsions available:

B&H Photo
Tri-X 400 15ft cassette (#488 perforated) $22.95
VPS 160 100ft roll (#475 perforated) $92.50

Calumet (Special order not listed in retail Kodak Film Listings)
Ekta 100S 100ft roll (can't remember price, but was pricy)
5071 Slide Dupe 100ft roll (couple of years ago, can't remember price)   
I get my film developed at A&I Lab in Hollywood (4 hr. E-6 if you
deliver/pick-up yourself at around $2.50 per foot of film)

You need bulk loader (available through KEH Camera), 15ft cassettes, 70mm
Hassy back. To mount your slides you can get 70mm slide mounts from Gepe or
Wess or cut off the perforations off yourself and use any 6x6 slide mount.

My applications is for underwater use where the 70 shots per roll 
advantage is
obvious.

Hope this info helped; Good luck,

Bo Mulder                            

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1998 
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 70MM -Forwarded - Kodak's number

Kodak's number is (800) 242-2424.

Gene Pallat
[email protected]    

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 70MM -Forwarded

>>The 64 Professional Ektachrome has been discontinued and  E100S has been
>>substituted instead, but does not appear on the Kodak Film Catalog
>>Bo Mulder

I know that, and like I tell others, many things are still offered by
Eastman that are not carried in their Pro Catalog. In fact, if you visit
some "Dealers" they cant even tell you what is available. I order items
from several Eastman divisions that are not listed in any Catalogs.

Regards,          

RM

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: kodak's secret films - was Re: 70MM -Forwarded

This observation brings up a problem I have with Kodak's catalogs and web
sites. I recall reading in Shutterbug that Kodak 620 film was available in
some professional emulsions but not listed - so how the heck do you or the
dealers know what to order? Then Kodak says there wasn't any demand for
it so we dropped it - orphaning lots of 620 classic camera users to
respooled 120 film. Circular reasoning to me. If you don't list the films
so even your own dealers can find it to order it, how can you sell it?

I am in the process of trying to list medium format films at my own page
as Kodak doesn't appear to list out films by format - which would seem
logical to me. They list their films, then you have to go look at each
one to figure out if they make it in 120. Usually when I am convinced
that this or that fast film is just what I need, I discover they don't   
make it in 120 rollfilm, just 35mm, which just makes me more mad ;-) ;-)

I would hope that Kodak would use their web site to make and keep a full
current list of their product offerings, since it is easily updated and
searched, even if their catalogs are incomplete.

as for 120 film listings, I am still looking for consolidated listings,
having posted what I found so far at

http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/film.html

more sources or pointers/links would be welcome - regards to all bobm

From: Garry Lee 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 120 *Consumer* Films ??
Date: 18 Mar 1998 

This consumer and pro thing in film is nonsense.

Pro film is film which is kept cool so the colour balance will be exact
for things like skin tone. Colour balance changes slightly with age,
otherwise. That's all.

I've shot weddings on amateur film and as far as Joe Soap could see, the
results were perfect. 

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1998 
From: "Eugene A. Pallat" 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: kodak's secret films - was Re: 70MM -Forwarded   

Reminds me of an incident 20 some years ago when I was speaking to someone
employed by Kodak.  I mentioned that professional photographers had been
begging Kodak to bring out Kodachrome in 120.  The answer was "If there was
a demand for it, Kodak would make it."  I then said that the demand was
there practically ever since Kodachrome was brought out in 35.  That person
just repeated the same mantra, parroting the company line.

Have you tried to get Kodak Mural paper in rolls?  Kodak dropped it.  Now I
have to piece together smaller size papers in order to make a mural.

At one time Kodak dropped Panatomic-X in 120 saying "Plus-X is good
enough."  Ilford then announced that they would make Pan-F in 120.  Even
after Kodak realized their mistake and re-released Panatomic-X in 120, I  
kept with Pan-F because I think it's a much better film.

As for dealer information, Kodak has had, and still might have, a policy
that a dealer can't carry certain products unless they have a salesman "on
the road" selling the product.  I know of more than one dealer that would
have been able to sell huge amounts of the products, far more than a single
sales rep, but were banned from doing so by that policy.

Gene Pallat

[email protected]  

Date: Thu, 19 Mar 1998 
From: "Lionel F. Stevenson" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: kodak's secret films - was Re: 70MM -Forwarded -Forwarded

Then there's the case that the great yellow father will not sell some
products other than in quantities that a photographer can never use up in a
lifetime!    

Date: Sun, 22 Mar 1998
From: Russ Rosener [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: x-processing film

I would recommend using Kodak Ektachrome E100S. Cross processed
Fujichrome just tends to go very yellow. Ektachrome gives more
variations on color cross over and subtle tones. There is an excellent
online comparison at http://www.photo-magazine.com/de/1tes1de.htm
There are direct comparisons of a model shot with both Fuji & Kodak 100
ASA films at various f/stops.
--
Russ Rosener
Washington University, St. Louis
http://home.stlnet.com/~rrosener/Archaic_Cyberspace.html 

From: [email protected] (Msherck)   
[1] Re: Medium Format Films      
Date: Wed Apr 01 1998

>Kodak  Vericolor III     160 <

Beautiful portrait film:  lower than usual contrast with excellent color, good
sharpness, fine grain.

>Kodak  Pro 100 PRN    100 <

Punchier than VPS, more saturated colors.  Don't use it much in my work.

>             Pro 400MC PMC   400  <

Superb high-speed film for color prints.  Lower contrast than usual makes this
my favorite wedding and indoor natural light film.  Colors accurate and bright,
fine grain, excellent sharpness.  Wonderful stuff:  this film makes my living.

>Fuji <

I don't use it.  Fuji doesn't give a rat's ass about photography or
photographers and until they look at me as something other than a vehical for
corporate profits, I'll continue to ignore them.  Not, of course, like 
they've noticed...  :)     

>Agfa <

Oddly enough, while I have used some of their 35mm stuff, their 120/220
film doesn't seem to be available around here.  Well, you don't live in
Indiana for the excitement of it all! 

>Kodak  Tri-X Pan TX   320>

*Sigh* I grew up with this stuff.  Another lovely film, but definitely not
the same film as the 400-speed Tri-X 35mm photographers are used to. 
Unique tonal gradiation:  along with Plus-X produces negatives which are
almost too beautiful to print. 

>        Plus-X Pan PXP   125>

A uniquely gorgeous B&W film.  May be the single best B&W portrait film in
existance, in my humble opinion.  :)  Tri-X and Plus-X may be the easiest B&W
film to print, although admittedly I'm pretty jaded about that...

>         T-Max 100 TMX   100>

T-Max films inspire one of two reactions:  you either love them or you
hate them.  This isn't a scientific survey by any means, but it seems to
me that photographers who process their own film and who have figured out
how to do this stuff love it; otherwise they hate it.  I'm in the love
camp, for landscape use especially.  Note:  grain is so fine that it can
be difficult to focus on when enlarging, if you use a grain magnifier. 
No, I'm not complaining...  :)

>            T-Max 400 TMY   400>

If I had to live with one film for the rest of my life, this would be the
one. Not the singular best in anything, it's just excellent for almost
everything. Very fine grained, very sharp:  can be difficult to print,
takes practice. More than any other film I know of (except Tech Pan) this
is a film you have to get to know in order to produce consistantly
excellent results.  But the effort is worth it. 

>            Technical Pan         25>

(Not mentioned in the original list) My absolute all-time favorite
landscape film.  Properly exposed and processed this film is grain-free.
Like Plus-X and Tri-X, tonal gradiation for this film is exquisitely
beautiful in itself.  I sometimes just lay a strip of negs on the light
box and look at them.  A bitch to process, however:  get just one little
thing wrong and you've hosed the whole roll.  If that isn't an argument
for large-format I don't know what is! This film has a very steep learning
curve:  don't count on getting anything useful from the first few rolls
but don't get discouraged. 

>Fuji   Neopan    400<

Appears to be a direct rip-off of an older Ilford or Agfa film.  Grainy, low
contrast:  ugly, ugly film.  And not even particularly cheap.  Even the
Hungarian stuff is better than this.

>Agfa   APX 25     25>

Nice film:   I could use this if I had to (and if Tech Pan wasn't available.)
But Tech Pan blows it away.  One advantage:  MUCH easier to process than Tech
Pan.

>Ilford   100 Delta Prof.  100>

Ilford's equivalent to Kodak's T-Max films.  Most of the same comments apply:
Ilford film is good stuff.  To me, T-Max has the edge in grain and sharpness
but Delta is easier to process and negatives seem to be a bit more 
'brilliant'.

>             400 Delta Prof.   400>

Same comments as above:  I like this film although I tend to use T-Max much
more often.

>             XP2 400 400> 

Oddly enough, I don't like this film.  Again, there seem to be two camps:
those who love it and those who don't.  Alas, I'm in the latter camp. 
Frankly, my whole attitude could be due to the fact that I think that the
negatives are ugly, compared to a more traditional B&W film. 

>             Plus Pan F 50> 

Almost as beautiful as Tech Pan, but a whole stop faster and easier
processing in the bargain!  A little difficult to come by here in Indiana
but then so is Tech Pan.  Frankly, if I hadn't gotten used to Tech Pan
first I'd probably use this more often.  As it is, I use mostly Tech Pan
in the field, Ilford's indoors in the studio.  Don't know why it turned
out that way, but it did! 

Note:  all of the above are my opinions, formed from using these products.
There's no inherent attempt here as presenting these views as anything other
than my opinions.  If anyone takes offence, well:  sorry 'bout that.  Get a
life

.
Mike Sherck
No, that's not a fire in my eyes:  I was just up too late last night. 

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected]   
[1] Re: Medium Format Films       
Date: Wed Apr 01 1998

I beg to differ about Fuji -it's better for color balance in the darkroom
than Kodak film. Especially when Kodak Gold has that imbedded "gold warm
tone"color in the emulsion that you cannot filtrate when printing. You
forgot Fuji Reala - the best 100 ASA film for everything in my opinion and
I've only been using it for the past five years in my medium formats. 

Richard 

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Harry D. George, Jr." [email protected]
[1] Re: Medium Format Films
Date: Wed Apr 01 

Fuji Reala wasn't included in the list because it's no longer available in
medium format. It's only available in 35mm and will soon be replaced in that
format by Superior Reala.

I did inadvertently leave Kodak Technical Pan (ISO 25; 120 size) off the
original list.

Harry 

From: steven T koontz [email protected]
[1] Re: Medium Format Films
Date: Wed Apr 01

well you are limiting your photography taking this aproach..

I use AGFA ULTRA 50 PRN 100 NHG 400 NHGII 800 E100S KONICA IR APX25
DELTA 100 and T-max 400 because I like them, not because who makes
them, where they come from or how hard it is to find them... Different
paints for different paintings...
--
steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
[email protected]   

From: "Harry D. George, Jr."  [email protected]
[1] Re: Medium Format Films
Date: Thu Apr 02 

Konica Films are:

    Type                        ISO                Sizes

    Impresa 50 Prof.            50                120
    VX 100                     100                120
    Professional 160           160                120/220
    SR-G160                    160                120/220
    SR-G 3200                 3200                120        

rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected] (Howard Bingham)                              
[1] Re: APS slide and B&W film                                           
Date: Tue Apr 07 1998 

(Dale DePriest) wrote:

(clipped)
>
> The last line is the key, otherwise the first line is wrong.  When APS
> cameras first came out they released a new film that had better quality
> than the then existing 35mm.  Later they released the new film in 35mm
> format but you must buy this one kind of film to make the claim that
> aps film and 35 mm film are the same.  For most users who continue to
> buy the cheaper 35mm films the aps film is better.
--
How could APS be better, when the same film is in 35mm(Sans: magnetic     
stripe), considering that the 24mm film needs to be enlarged more than
35mm, in order to achieve standard sized prints (Such as 8 x 10, 16 x 20,
etc.)..

Sales of APS camera's in my area are flat.. IE: They are not selling..

Explain, also the benefits of APS, being that neither b & w, nor slide
film are available for it..(True, that Kodak has announced b & w, & true,
that Fuji has announced slide film.. But they have been saying this for a
year.).. Please also explain why APS processing cost's more than 35mm, on
a per exposed frame basis.. (Consumer Reports (Nov. 1997) issue points
this out..)..

35mm has been around since sometime in the 1920's & continues to gain
market share, to spite all of the new formats that show up & disappear.. I
predict that the lifetime for APS will be at the most 15 years, if that
long..

Full digital technology is where the market is going & that is evidenced
at the many professional trade shows, both in the technology & in price..
The entry level digital camera's are becoming more affordable & the
quality of the image has significantly improved over the past year..

The best buy on the current market, in the point & shoot & advanced
amateur cattegories, is 35mm..

APS will only be a stepping stone for some, to the digital field..
--
> APS cameras are coded with IX information that includes photgraphic 
conditions
> and information that can be used by the developing machine to improve the
> picture.
--
How, unless your lab is willing to flip for an $ 80,000 piece of
equipment.. Most labs have only upgraded their existing machines.. It
takes special equipment that only a few of the larger labs have been
willing to aquire, in order to take full advantage of the APS magnetic
stripe features & only a few advanced camera's have full ability to
perform those..

--
> What this means is that while an individual picture shot by
> a professional with 35mm film will be better than APS the same cannot
> be said for average picture takers.  The idea is the percentage of good
> pictures taken with APS cameras will be higher.
>
> I am very satisfied with the quality of pictures taken with my Minolta   
> Vectris 40 camera and APS film from both Kodak and Fuji.  They are,
> on an average, better than my old Pentax.
>
> By the way, if the lenses are exactly the same between APS and 35mm you
> will notice that the APS lens seems faster and longer due to the smaller
> negative area.
--
I get the same effects on my Olympus Pen 1/2 frame camera.. This is not a
new feature & the Pen F, can still use most of the lenses made for
standard Olympus camera's..

With the 1/2 frame camera, there is no need for labs to buy expensive
equipment to handle it, because it has been around for years & slide
mounts (For those that prefer slides), are available from most
manufacturers of mounts & mounting equipment..
--

> --
>     _      _     Dale DePriest                  San Jose, California
>    /`) _  //     [email protected]              voice: (408) 428-5249
>  o/_/ (_(_X_(`   ISO 9000 Program Manager       fax: (408) 894-3484
--
The only winners on the APS camera's, are the manufacturer's that make the      
special equipment that is needed to process the film in a way to fully
utilize all of the features.. One guess what manufacturer, is
manufacturing that equipment (One hint, it is not Kodak.)

Howard Bingham (With over 35 years experience in the professional
photofinishing field..)

--
(Opinions stated, are personal & are not those of my employer.)
D. Howard Bingham, Color Lab Mgr., Baylor College of Medicine
One Baylor Plaza, Suite 303-A, Houston, Texas, 77030 USA
Phone (voice): 713-798-4681, (Fax): 713-798-6853
Visit our web site at URL: http://www.bcm.tmc.edu/miave/   

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: steven T koontz [email protected]
[1] Re: Konica Infrared120
Date: Thu Apr 09 1998  

 Gary Cole wrote:
>
> I just got some Konica Infrared 120 and like Shutterbug said, there is
> no instruction sheet enclose. What speed should this be rated at and
> does it need to be handled in total darkness? Is there a recommended
> film speed? Thanks.

I shoot alot of this film and have a page on IR film at my site that
covers using it... check it out.. on exposing, with red 25 filter
1/4-1/2 at f22 works great in bright sun...

--

steve's photography & Z car stuff @ http://www.mindspring.com/~skoontz
[email protected] 

MEDIUM FORMAT FILMS

COLOR NEGATIVE (PRINT) FILMS:

Brand  Type                              ISO         Sizes Available

Kodak
              Vericolor III             160          120/220
              Pro 100 PRN               100          120/220
              Pro 100T PRT              100          120
              Pro 400 PPF               400          120/220
              Pro 400MC PMC             400          120/220
              Pro 1000 PMZ             1000          120

Fuji
              Fujicolor NPS 160         160            120/220
              Fujicolor NPL 160         160            120
              Fujicolor NPH 400         400            120/220
              Fujicolor 400 NHG         400            120/220
              Fujicolor NHG II          800            120/220      

Agfa
             Agfacolor Optima 100      100             120/220
             Agfacolor Optima 200      200             120
             Agfacolor Optima 400      400             120/220
             Agfacolor Portrait XPS    160             120/220
             Agfacolor Ultra 50         50             120

COLOR REVERSAL (TRANSPARENCY) FILMS:

Brand  Type                            ISO          Sizes Available

Kodak

             Ektachrome 100S           100             120/220
             Ektachrome 100W           100             120/220
             Ektachrome  100SW         100             120     
             Ektachrome 160T           160             120
             Ektachrome 400X   EPL     400             120

Fuji
            Provia 100 RDP II          100             120/220
            Provia 400 RHP             400             120
            Fujichrome MS 100/1000     100             120
            Fujichrome Velvia RVP       50             120/220
            Fujichrome Astia           100             120
            Fujichrome 64 Prof. T  RTP  64             120

Agfa
           Agfachrome RSX 50             50             120
           Agfachrome RSX 100           100             120/220
           Agfachrome RSX 200           200             120

BLACK AND WHITE FILMS:                                               

Brand  Type                                   ISO           Sizes

Kodak
            Tri-X Pan TX                      320             120
            Tri-X Pan TXP                     320             120/220
            Plus-X Pan PXP                    125             120/220
            Plus-X Pan PXE                    125             120/220
            T-Max 100 TMX                     100             120
            T-Max 400 TMY                     400             120
            Prof. T-Max T400 CN               400             120

Fuji
           Neopan                             400             120

Agfa
           APX 25                              25              120  
           APX 100                            100              120
           APX 400                            400              120

Ilford
          100 Delta Prof.                     100              120
          400 Delta Prof.                     400              120/220
          XP2 400                             400              120
          Plus Pan F                           50              120
          FP4 Plus                            125              120/220
          HP5                                 400              120/220

BLACK AND WHITE TRANSPARENCY FILM:

Brand    Type                                 ISO            Sizes

Agfa                                      
            Scala 200                         200               120

Andrew Tune [email protected] wrote 
> Hi,
>
> Can anyone tell me if there is film which is sensitive to UV light only
> and if so, what the important parts of the chemical composition of it
> are?

> After years of shooting T-Max 400 in both 35mm and 120, I've decided to give
> ol' Tri-X a shot.  I was looking at stuff I shot ten years ago and wondered
> why they looked different from newer stuff and I realized that all the old
> stuff was Tri-X in HC-110 dilution B, soooo....
>
> I shlepped down to the local photo store and bought a Pro-Pack of Tri-X
> Professional (6049) and a bottle of HC-110.  Now, I know that Tri-X Pro is
> rated by Old Yeller at 320 and Tri-X is 400.  My question is:
>
> What are the other differences in the films?     

> Does anyone have some reciprocity characteristics of the following films--Kodak
> PRN-100, T-Max-100, Tri-x, and Fuji Astia-100 all large format. My exposures
> will probably be in the one to three min. range.  Thanks.

> Does anyone have some reciprocity characteristics of the following films--Kodak
> PRN-100, T-Max-100, Tri-x, and Fuji Astia-100 all large format. My exposures
> will probably be in the one to three min. range.  Thanks.

Jeffrey N Rago wrote:
>
> Is it possible to get film for 'old' cameras?
>
> A friend has some (really) old cameras that take "Kodak 620" or
> A28 film.

   I have successfully respooled 120 film onto a 620 spool and used same
in a 620 camera, but my method requires a 120 camera and there is the
risk of loss of film if you're not careful:
   1) load a roll of your choice 120 film into a 120 camera and run the
film all the way through without making any exposures.
   2) take the 120 roll (labeled "exposed", but not really exposed) and
a 620 spool into a TOTALLY DARK room, and start winding (by hand) the
end of the 120 roll onto the 620 spool, always providing tension to wrap
the backing tight.
   3) the tricky part - feel carefully for the end of the actual film
(it is not taped to the backing at this end) and tuck it tightly into
the winding of backing (obviously, the film MUST be INSIDE the backing
in relation to the spool core.
   4) finish winding the film and backing paper onto the 620 spool,
continuing to provide tension, when you are finished, you will have a
roll of film at its beginning which will work in any 12-exposure 620
camera.
   5) load into a square 620 camera and enjoy.

>I wonder if Film for Classics will start spooling 126 film.  I have
>purchased 616 from them before.  It's a good service for all those old
>cameras sitting around.
>
>Bob, the Kodak release mentions APS.  I wonder if it too will eventually
>go the way of 126, and 110, and the disc?  I just don't see smaller
>negative size being an advantage.  I like 35mm, and in the past couple
>months since I've been fooling around with TLRs I like 120 a lot
>better.  I just cannot see going the other way in size, and the APS
>negative is significantly smaller.  So, what's your evaluation of the
>acceptance of APS?  Will this Christmas season and all those "open me
>first" packages be the "make or break" for that format?  Will it
>strictly be an amateur medium, or will be eventually see an F5 APS 
>version?
>
>Wasn't 126 really doomed from the start for lack of a good pressure
>plate to hold the film flat?  I always thought it was a waste to see a
>good camera like the Instamatic Reflex (a Retina in disguise) with
>Schneider optics made to be loaded with that crap.

> If you're paying $10/roll for processing you are getting ripped off!
>
....
> I use Price Club/Costco membership 1 hr. service: $4.24 for 24 exp and
> $5.89 for 36 exp. The next best price I've found is Wal Mart.
>

Chicknpiza ([email protected]) wrote:
>
> I've been shooting for about a year as a serious amateur and now I'm
> interested in testing films...  Any tips, ideas, or methods would help.

>> Regarding a message from Mike on 6/8/98 about Kodak or Fuji making private
>> label films....
>> 
>>
>> Fuji makes film for Polaroid, labeled as Polaroid High Definition. I have
>> only been able to find it at Wal-Mart.
>>
>> Polaroid One Film is an older generation of Agfa film.
>
>I think one film is really Scotch/3M, as the negative edge codes are
>identical to 3M
>
>

>I love IR photography and have experimented with black and white but what
>would be a good color IR print film choice.....kodak echtachrome color IR or
>what...?  Also if any IR photographers have a favorite filter for color IR
>film I would appreciate hearing what you use..Thanks!
>
>Christian

Dan Baldocchi wrote...
> I have  a  Hasselblad SWC and have the opportunity to get a 70mm back
> for it.  According to Hasselblad, double perf. 70mm X 15ft rolls will
> provide 70 exposures.  This is very appealing to me for the type of
> shooting I do, but I cannot seem to find anyone who sells 70mm film.
> Does anyone here know where I can get some.  I'd hate to buy this back
> and not be able to use it.  I shoot mainly Black and white, and color
> reversal.  I'm not realy interested in color print film.  Thanks for the
> help.
>
> Dan B.

>
>
>   I've been shooting for about a year as a serious amature and now i'm
> interested in testing films.  I have no idea how to reasonably get 
> started on a low budget.  Any Tips, ideas, or methods would help.
>

> I am an amateur wondering about the quality of "house" film from mail-order
> labs such as York, Mystic, and SFW.
>
> How do these compare to the non-professional grades of Kodak or Fuji film?

>Regarding a message from Mike on 6/8/98 about Kodak or Fuji making private
>label films....
>
>
>Fuji makes film for Polaroid, labeled as Polaroid High Definition. I have
>only been able to find it at Wal-Mart.
>
>Polaroid One Film is an older generation of Agfa film.
>
>My wife and I are working on a film page, answering basic FAQs about (color)
>film and (standard) processing. It's at
>http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/3259 We are still working on it, so
>please be patient!
>
>Dave

Dugphoto [email protected] wrote:
: Hi group,

:      I'm thinking about switching from consumer print film to pro print film
: (kodak VPS or Fuji NPS), but I'm not a consistently constant shooter.
: Sometimes, I might go one or two months without shooting.  I can store the film
: in the refrigerator, but even if I do that what's the "shelf life" of these
: films and what happens to the films after that.

: Any information would be greatly appreciated.

: Doug

> - films: slides or paper? Which kind of film (ASA ???) would be appropriate
> for this region?

> - developping: I will come across Bangkok at one time or another. Is this a
> place to save money for developping? Are they reliable? Will it be better
> for me to developp there in the middle of the trip and then DHL it home than
> keeping all the films undevelopped until the end?

> - How to keep the films when it's 35 degree centigrade and 90% humidity and
> all the fridges give you is condensing water on the films?

[email protected] wrote:
> From my research on Kodak films it appears my best choices would be:
> Royal Gold 400 (Most situations)
> Royal Gold 1000 (Low light / no flash)

Minnesota  [email protected] wrote:
>I'm new to photography and have been reading the newsgroups for info on
>different color films, slide vs. negs etc.  The one topic that comes up
>a lot is contrast, and I'm not quite sure what is meant by that.  Some
>complain of film being too contrasty or a certain film is low contrast
>and subtle.  Can someone please explain this to me in as much detail as
>you want or can.  This would help me follow the discussions better.
>Thank you in advance.  

IK ([email protected]) wrote:
: Does anybody know of a online shop which ships films to the european
: market (should be located in europe because of the delivery time)

>...
>What I AM saying is this:
>If you never make big enlargements (which VERY few people do, you
>have to admit!), then there is PRACTICALLY NO DIFFERENCE in the
>picture quality between the two formats. ...
>...

>I'd be interested in information about how safe it is to leave cameras and
>lenses in the trunk of a car on a hot day (over 100 degrees type day).
>Does it affect the lubricants, the plastic, etc.?   I know that it is not a
>great idea for the film, so I'm not really asking for information about how
>it affects film --- just the camera equipment.  Thanks. 

>Will getting an exposed film canister wet in any way hurt the film?  I
>dropped a finished roll into a tide pool in Monterey, CA while
>reloading.  I think the photos are good, and I'm just kind of worried
>about them getting destroyed.  For the record, it was only submerged
>about 1/4" and I don't think much water got in the canister.
>
>dan
>
>p.s.  please respond with an email.  It will be appreciated.

>  and what kind of precautions do
> I need to take when handling film in the field??

>First, Kodak never sold its film under any store brand.  This is in part because
>the name is well known for photographic products for more than 100 years!
>

>Therefore, that company has no reason to distribute its film under any other
>name than its own.
>
>Fuji at one time sold its film (back in the 1970s and early 1980s) under the
>Walgreen's name.  The company, since the mid 1980s has ceased the practice.

>
>The Polaroid High Definition film is actually manufactured by Konica.
>
>Konica also sells its film under its own name, and under the
>CVS/Revco store brand name.
>
>Polaroid's One Film is currently manufactured by Agfa.  One Film was at one
>time manufactured by 3M (pre-Imation).

>
>The reason Wal-Mart is the sole distributor is that Wal-Mart has the purchasing
>power that very few drug store, discount retail store, and one-hour  processing
>retailers have.
>
>As for store brands, K-Mart (Focal), Smitty's, Jewel/Osco, Target and many
>other store brands are manufactured by Imation (http://www.imation.com), a
>former division of 3M.
>
>Agfa distributes its film under the Ritz Photo, Moto Photo, and Walgreen's
>Studio 35 brands.

>
>The Walgreen's brand is repackaged Agfacolor HPC film.
>
>Patrick G Horneker
>[email protected]
>

>The one time only that I tried using Provia 400 in 120 format was
>disasterous.  The definition was terrible.  I couldn't believe it was a 120
>sized film.

>     I was wondering if there was anything that could happen during the
> processing of E6 slides that would cause a color shift from blue to
> purple. I recently had a roll of Kodak E200 processed. A slide of a
> blue flower came back with a distinct purple cast. I bracketed + - 2/3
> stop and all have the cast. Could this be caused by chemicals that
> were no fresh?

>I buy consumer grade film (Kodak Gold whatever) and usually store the film in
>the fridge. Is this a good idea? Any problems with doing this? How long  could I
>expect film stored there to last? BTW I let the film warm up a bit  before I
>load it in the camera. Any info on this would be greatly appreciated.

>I don't get it.  They tell you that you have to refrigerate pro films
>but then are willing to send them to you and guaranteeing quality.
>During transits, it's not uncommon to films to sit in the hot sun
>and/or hot warehouses for a bit.  Wouldn't this affect the quality of
>these pro films by "maturing" their emulsion?  I would be willing to
>buy mail order if someone could give me a good explanation.
>
>thanks,
>
>Tiep

>> I'm thinking going to EPP for the good fleshtones.
>>
>> Fredric
>
>Hello,
>
>     What's EPP?
>
>     I'm looking for a color film in 120 for the Rollei.  Ironicly, a bought
>the Rollei planning to use Kodachrome 64, only to find in discontinued
>in 120 size.
>
>     What's a good choice for transparency film for outdoors daylight.   
>The Kodachrome gave great results in the sun.  I guess the choices
>are between Fuji, Ektachrome or Agfa.  I want to be able to project
>them, and occassionally make Ilfochrome prints with a Dichro head.
>
>                               Yours,
>
>                                               Rich Lahrson
>                                               [email protected]

> What are the advantages of using slide film compared to print film?

>If you find any errors, omissions, or inconsistencies in this, please
>let me know.

>3.1.4 NPS 160 Professional                                 
>mileage may vary. NPS seems to be loosing popularity as a portrait
>film to Provia, which is easier to develop.

> Has anybody else had Kirkland brand film come back from the processor  with a
> greenish tint to it?  I have had mixed luck, mostly the green tint affects
> the Kirkland ASA 200 film.
>
> What have your experiences been?  Is just the lot I bought from lousy,  or is
> it the Kirkland film in general.
>
> Thanks for sharing your experiences.

>From: "Les Alvis" 
>To: 
>Subject: [Rollei] Off topic:  Seattle Film Works
>Date: Thu, Jan 14, 1999, 4:20 AM
>
>Today I received a direct mail marketing package from the lab Seattle Film
>Works which included two rolls of 20-exposure 35mm color print film, one ISO
>200 and the other 400.  The film is labeled simply "Seattle Film Works" and
>contains the ominous message "Process SFW-XL only at Seattle Film Works".
>
>I have no interest in using this lab, but I might shoot the film if I can
>find out what it is.  Anyone out there know?  Who makes it?  Is it a C-41
>film?
>
>Les Alvis

> Last month I purchased a half price films because they are going to be out
> of date in Febrary. These are Kodad Royal Gold 200 and 400. I have already
> developed 3 and they are Ok, but I've got come more, and maybe I will have
> to develop them in March.
> Is there anybody who Knows what happend if they become prints one or two
> months after expired?

>> Today I received a direct mail marketing package from the lab Seattle Film
>> Works which included two rolls of 20-exposure 35mm color print film, one ISO
>> 200 and the other 400.  The film is labeled simply "Seattle Film  Works" and
>> contains the ominous message "Process SFW-XL only at Seattle Film Works".
>>
>> I have no interest in using this lab, but I might shoot the film if I can
>> find out what it is.  Anyone out there know?  Who makes it?  Is it a C-41
>> film?
>
>According to Phil Greenspun's photo.net webpage, Seattle Film Works uses 
>movie film, which is of much lower quality than photographic film and is
>NOT C-41. You have to store the negs in the freezer (permanently) like
>motion pictures, or else they fade fast. It's strictly junk and a
>marketing ploy to sucker people into developing at Seatlle Filmworks.
>
>--Jim

> What is a good and inexpensive lab for processing 4x5 slide
> film (Velvia) and/or making prints from the transparencies
> (Ilfochrome?)

> I've seen the film out of the developer alongside the latest AGFA
> and I mean tandem processing, going through the tanks side by side.
> They look different to me.

> AL52818 wrote:
> > Hey, Zeljko:
> >
> >           Would you educate me for a moment.
> > If I understand you correctly, there is a
> > difference between Ilfochrome and regular
> > old slide films like Fuji's Velvia or Kodak's
> > Kodachrome. Please tell me what the difference is.
> >
> >                                                     Thanks,
> No. Ilfochrome is a paper on which you directly print your slides
> instead of making an internegative and than print it on regular negative
> paper.
> Ilfochrome is not slide film.
>
> Zeljko

>My nephew has an old Kodak 3A, Film Size 122. This thing makes a
>negative that is about 3.5"X 5.25"  .
>
>I'm sure film size 122 is no longer available, but my question is, why
>not? Here we have a large format camera with the convinience of a roll
>film camera. As a matter of fact, this camera folds down and will fit in
>a large pocket. It even has some limited front tilts and swing.
>
>I wonder why something like this never caught on? Problems with film
>flatness?
>
>Anybody out here ever actually use one of these?
>
>Steve   

>i do a lot of potraiture n wedding photography.  just wondering if anyone
>out there has any preference over films for these subjects??  thanks
>zain : [email protected]

NPS- 160 speed
NPH-400 speed
NHGII-800speed
VPS-now Portra 160 NC
PRN-now Portra160 VC
PMC-now Portra 400 NC
PPF-now Portra 400 VC
PMZ-1000 speed

> Hi Daniel,
> What a great idea from only 1 Parish over!
> I never made the connection that minilabs don't break open the "staked"
> (solidly sealed) 35mm factory-load cartridges but cut off the film at the tail
> end,
> leaving that last scrap of film taped to the spool trapped inside the cartridge.
> So you're saying you simply tape the end of your bulk film roll to this scrap of
> film in the OEM cartridge, drop the cart into the bulk loader, close the
> loader up and simply crank in the required number of frames.
> Please correct me if I am wrong on this procedure.

>extractor leaving the cassette intact then the cut off the film at the end
>of the roll. What you end up getting from the minilabs is a 35mm cassette
>with about a half of an inch of film sticking out.
>
>To reload it, just butt the bulk film up against what is sticking out of
>the cassette and tape on both sides (extending about 1/2" on either side
>of the butt joint). You need to use a thin tape, I use the clear packaging
>tape (the 2" or so wide tape everyone uses for shipping) which I have into
>roughly 1" x 1" squares. If you use the thicker masking tape the cassette
>tries to strip the tape off when you wind in the film.

>According to this month's Pop Photo, VPS is slated to be discontinued
>"sometime in late 1999"
>
>According to Kodak's web site, they will determine the fate of VPS after
>they see what the acceptance of Portra 160 is like. So who is right? And
>what's happening with the sales of VPS versus Portra: are people switching?
>
>
>I haven't used Portra and I don't intend to, since Kodak refuses to give
>out any information on its archival storage characteristics, and Wilhelm
>doesn't have any test results out on it. Besides, I really like VPS, so why
>switch?
>By the way those of you who visit Kodak's web site every now and then will
>note that all references to VPS's extended image stability characteristics
>have been carefully removed. It's as if Cigarette Smoking Man works the
>night shift at Kodak.
>
>This stinks. Until there is information otherwise, it sounds like Portra is
>in this way a decidedly inferior product, at a higher price. Either VPS is
>difficult or expensive to manufacture, so Kodak wants to phase it out; or
>else, they figure with something "new", it is easier to hype it and create
>market share; or their is some internal politics going on.
>
>Does anybody from Kodak passing through here have any information on the
>image permanence characteristics of Portra versus VPS? In the past I've
>telephoned and emailed Kodak, Agfa and Konica asking about this, and have
>gotten no reply. Sounds like some people have some big secrets they want to
>cover up.

> Finally, I am told that you guys are the experts on "Make your own" oddball
> film sizes. I have a 616 camera and a number of out of date films. I'm
> looking at rerolling them with fresh 70mm stock. I was wondering if anyone
> knew of a cheap 70mm film source (preferably unperferated) and anyones
> experiences with making up obsolete roll film sizes.

>  [email protected] (lemonade) wrote:
>
> something that may work well for you. I think you need to start
> looking towards new emulsions, don't get me wrong I like VPS too,
> considering it no1 for children portraits.  Honestly the handwriting
> is on the wall, I've been shooting various new emulsions attempting to
> get a grip on performance and lab results. One day you may find
> yourself with no VPS and no clue as to how any of these new films work

> proofing offers as well as CD proofing offers , it's easy to figure
> the new films are just about based on improved scanning abilities. If
> you read literature from Kodak they indicate the new emulsions have
> improved scanning capability . The world is moving towards digital and

> this archival problem you are having? Is this really such a pickle for
> you? In my own personal practice I offer the negatives up in about
> three years , the client can have them or I toss them out,  I want the
> space. If I keep the negatives, certain ones I do keep, how long
> before this reaches catastrophic perportions anyway. Let's face it , I
> don't know about you, I'm pushing on towards 50 myself, if the negs

> Archival qualities in E6 is of more concern to me than C41 in all

> been hearing about PMZ? You know this is a turn us all upside down

>Hello ng,
>
>Lately I have been reading some posts on Kodak making HEI in 70mm size  - long
>bulk rolls.   Well, I was wondering, is there a 70mm back available for the
>mamiya RZ/RB 6x7?   Is this Mamiya's Quadra Back?  or is that something totally
>different?  And any ideas on how to make/load useable rolls out of the 70mm
>bulk roll?
>well, thanks in advance
>
>jim

>Have you ever wished for fast B&W film in 120 size? Well this week at
>http://kmcamera/com. Ilford has the answer; Delta 3200 is available in 120
>and is on sale for $3.49 per roll. Visit out homepage to order.

>Do one have to take the films out of cardboard boxes before one freezes the
>films? Where Can I get proper information? With thanks.

> Do one have to take the films out of cardboard boxes before one freezes the
> films? Where Can I get proper information? With thanks.

>David McKeand [email protected]
>Does anyone know whether 6x7 or 6x9 cm cut sheet film is still available?

::seattle film works film is a film that was developed for the motion  pictures in
::hollywood by kodak,  the film makers did not like it so seattle film works
::bought the rights to it from kodak.  the make it & process it.

Kodak Processing
PO Box 2
Deer Park Road
Wimbledon
SW19 3UG

Cost: �5.30

Cheers,

Frederic 

> Efke is a small, independent film maker in what was Yugoslavia.
>
> Ken

>Who owns Ilford, Agfa, Efke and Konica? Are they subsidiaries of Kodak,
>Fuji, and 3M?

Kodak:  www.kodak.com
Fuji:  www.fujifilm.com
Agfa: www.agfa.com
Polaroid: www.polaroid.com
Konica: www.konica.com
Ilford: www.ilford.com
Imation/Ferrania USA, Inc: www.imation.com (film unit seems to have been
sold to something called Schroder Ventures)
Foma: http://www.foma.cz
Efke: http://www.fotoimpex.de/ (is this their page or a distributor?)

>From: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Ilford film
>Date: Fri, Nov 19, 1999, 2:53 PM
>

> Despite claims to the contrary, there are many readers of this
> paragraph who will conclude that at least some of those minor-fault
> production runs are those that are sold by sources like Freestyle.
> Comment? 

>Your comment about Freestyle implying they would be an outlet for Ilford
>lesser quality film brings to mind the following questions:
>1.  Would still leave their lable on the problem film?
>2.  Freestyle markets film and paper under the brand name Arrista which
>seems to be suspiciously like Ilford.  Is Arrista an Ilford product?  If
>so, is it not first quality?
>
>Roland Smith
>[email protected]
>
>----------

>Serious question, if you don't mind. Why do you use anything other than
>consumer films?  What do the 'professional' films bring to the photo
>that require their use in the other 30% of your work?

>  AFAIK Kodak does not do this, insisting that all Kodak film be sold under
> the Kodak brand name.

>There is nothing that even comes close to polaroid if the final result
>is going to be on paper. And you only really know for sure if you take
>the pola with the lens that will take the final picture. That's why I
>not only have a pola-back on the Hassy, but also on the 35mm gear.
>
>I've tried various ways, but everything else just sucks.

>From: "Neil Carpenter" [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Slightly off-topic accessory back
>Date: Fri, Mar 31, 2000, 
>
> Didn't Kodak introduce APS?

> Kodak adapted 120 and 116 to 620 and 616 so they (and the rest of the
> industry) could start making thinner cameras without reducing the frame size

> Rubbish! Kodak invented 620 to ensure that camera owners bought their
> film and not a competitors!

>Kodachrome gives you that ``National Geographic''
>look.

> I have always wondered why many photographers seem to like the results of
> NOT shooting at the manufacturers rated ISO.  Is it possible that TTL
> metering systems just don't give the same results as dedicated handheld
> meters?
>
> I'm all for increased shadow detail but don't like oversaturated color.  1/3
> stop adjustment is popular, but my and held measures/reads tenths of a stop.
> If the camera TTL systems were as accurate I wonder if offsetting ISO would
> be as common a practice.
>
> In other words, is it the films rating or the camera TTL metering and stop
> stepping that is off?

> Hi there -
> Well, I did some more research and it turns out that Adox was only
> making graphic arts and technical films, and that the classic Adox
> films have been made by Efke for the last 20 years or so.  So the Adox
> I was using back in my 35mm days was actually from Efke in any case...
>
> Efke's adress and fax numbers in Croatia
>
> Fotokemika
> Hondlova 2
> HR-1000 Zagreb (Kroatien)
> Fax: 00385/1/2395868
>
> And for our readers in Germany:
>
> Fotoimpex
> Reinkardstra_e 3
> 10117 Berlin
> Telephon: 030/2859901
> Telefax: 030/28599082
>
> So there is still hope...

>I am looking for a way to keep a set of numbered film canister lids
>together so that I can have them ready when shooting several roles of
>film that must be kept in order.

>On two occassions, I've purchased vintage Rollei TLRs and found a metal
>take up spool in the camera.  Assuming the spool was left by the last
>user, does this date the camera's last use?  Or in other words, what
>dates were "BP," (before plastic).

> Hello all,
>
>
> Does anyone know what standard film developing process is equivilent to
> the Seattle FilmWorks process SFW-XL?
>
>  I have a bunch of this film and was wondering if it's worth messing with.
>
> Has anyone any experience with this film?  If so, comments and
> comparisons to pro films would be appreciated?

>I have kind of a newbie question. I bought a used A12 that is a little
>problematical. If I line up the arrow on the film and insert, the first
>frame is on the tape. It seems pretty consistent, so I could just wind on a
>little bit when I load. I'm wondering if this is common?

>Quick question, some limited Rolleiflex content.  Who makes 120 format B/W
>infrared film?  Or does the format (roll and paper backing) not lend itself
>to infrared film.

>It is a complete and utter fabrication. I know someone in a managment
>position that emphatically says it will not happen. Makes you wonder

> Hi,
>
> Got a stupid question.  Why is everyone convinced that Walgreen's film is
> made by Agfa?  The only reported evidence is that the film is marked made in
> Germany.  Doesn't that mean it could be Oswo (sp?) which was made in what
> used to be East Germany?

>I originally posted this only to rec.photo.film+labs, then realized
>that I probably should have cross posted it elsewhere.  Since I've
>seen this discussed a fair amount on r.p.darkroom, and there was
>recently an article in View Camera dealing with the subject and
>comparing the Arista films with FP4+ and HP5+ when used in PMK, I
>thought the easiest thing to do was cross post a reply, which gets the
>original quote into the other groups as well.
>
>Roger Cole
>
> [email protected] (Roger Cole) wrote:
>>I was talking to a friend who runs a pro lab a couple of days ago. He
>>has recently discussed with his Ilford rep the question of whether
>>Freestyle's BW films are really Ilford as they seem to be any everyone
>>seems to believe. After a bit if hemming and hawing, the rep admited
>>off the record that they were, but further explained the Ilford only
>>sells film that fails to fully meet Ilford specs for this repackaging.
>>He mostly admited that the differences were slight and the Freestyle
>>would be "pretty good stuff" but that it didn't quite make the Ilford
>>cut.
>>
>>Good enough for me.  I have always had fine results with it, so I will
>>continue using it.
>>
>>As for the identity of the lab, rep etc. - ask me no questions, I'll
>>tell you no lies!  I don't intend to get anyone in trouble, especially
>>when he was really just helping us all out.
>>
>>Roger Cole

>  I will repeat that Ilford solicits custom manufacturing. Its likely
>Freestyle contracts with Ilford for Arista films. Arista is not super
>cheap, its just lower priced than branded stuff, which can be
>accounted for by the high-volume regular sale to Freestyle.
>  The film is definitely Ilford. I even got 120 rolls one time which
>had sticky lables which said Ilford on them!
>  Some of the graphic arts stuff may be other brands and Arista
>printing paper definitely seems to be something else than Ilford
>(Kentmere?).
>---
>Richard Knoppow
>Los Angeles, Ca.
>[email protected]

>I think most makers (Kodak possibly excepted) do some contract manufacturing

> KODAK    and FUJI        do not maker films for other brands.

>KODAK   and FUJI        do not maker films for other brands.

>From what I understand Ritz sells Fuji film under it's label.

> I order my film from B&H, have shot probably 1000 rolls of film from them
> (mostly Velvia) and never had a problem with a single roll.  I have also shot
> grey market Kodak (about 30-40 rolls) and never had a problem.  Remember the
> Kodak rep has a vested interest in selling you Kodak USA film!

=====
William Corr
English Department,
Yosu National University
San 96-1 Dundockdong, Yosu, Chollanamdo,
REPUBLIC OF KOREA 550-749
Tel: 0662-659-3510 FAX: 0662-659-3003
e-mail: [email protected]

>the only film I got now is some communist B&W ...

> Has anybody shot Kirkland film from Costco? It certainly is reasonably
> priced. I notice it�s manufactured in Germany, so perhaps it�s Agfa film.

>Sorry if this gets posted twice; server trouble again.  I'm wondering
>where to store film I may not get around to shooting for a year or two.
>E6 and C41, mostly ASA 100, but some goes up to 400.  Currently it is in
>the refrigerator.  Thanks.

>There is very little consistency in the quality of the Seattle films. They
>always buy remnants, and all storts of film, so if you buy today one slide
>film it will be a different one next batch so whatever results you may have
>gotten once, cannot be replicated.
>
>They are great films for Joe Consumer, but not for anyone expecting some
>degree of consistency in results.
>
>-_______________
>Andrei D. Calciu (VA-4270)
>NEC America, Inc.
>14040 Park Center Dr.

>From: "Roger M. Wiser" [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Seattle Film Co.
>Date: Mon, Jul 17, 2000, 7:14 PM
>
>Recently I got some new Seattle film mailed to me that I noted had a
>different
>package. They went from 20 to 24 exposures and the package said "process
>C-41"
>It also indicated "made in Italy finished in the USA"

Wilber> let the camera fire with it in place. Next where are you
Wilber> getting Polaroid for $15.00 a pack, is this single or double
Wilber> pack? Color or B/W. If that's for a double I need to know your
Wilber> supplier.

>If a picture is worth taking it's worth being taken on decent film.

>NO Kodachrome 25 at pro photo in Portland Oregon. Not in the catalog they say.
>I had to settle for some 64 and a roll of 200. I'm bummed out!
>Mark William Rabiner

 :  Could you please explain what the 70mm film is?  I only worked with 120
 :  format and I'm wondering if I could actually get some benefits from it. What
 :  the actual image size would be with it (dependently from a certain type of
 :  camera back/lens)? I really know nothing about it and I appreciate very much
 :  for any help.
 :  Thank you.

>My previous sources for 120 infrared film have dried up.
>Where can I lay my hands on some these days, eh?

>Is Efke the film manufactured in the Czech Republic that ran into some patent
>problems when they tried to distribute in US? John K

>>>  [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:
>>>> basically, the EPA rather than digital photography now looks to get
>>>the
>>>> major credit for killing off film, esp. slide film and black and white
>>>> at least in the major USA markets by requiring treatment of waste
>>>water to

>Have you had problems purchasing chemicals through the mail? There seems
>to be something going on with new regulations on transporting this stuff.
>Haven't been able to get any CN-2 processing kits for over a month now.

>>What is the profit margin, (the mark up) of most Nikon equipment? I
>>remember in the "old" days it was around 35%.  That is,  the retailer
>>paid 35% less than MSRP.
>>Ernie

>Just for fun, Joe:
>
>I think all this talk of dry film plates replacing wet plates is a bunch
>of crap.
>Dry film plates can replace wet plates for commercial needs, but they
>cannot replace the artistic process. Dry film plate cameras have not
>replaced traditional wet plate cameras, have they?

>The fact that Kodak did it all without any warning ticks me off
>pretty good, too.  I woudn't mind quite so much if they'd just
>tell me, one way or the other.  But apparently Kodak is not
>structured so that the guys at the KIC can pass information
>on to the rest of the company, nor does the rest of the
>company pass on any info to the guys at KIC.  This would
>not seem to be a logical arrangement.
>
>
>-Paul

> Hello Paul,
>
> Not knowing the mechanics of a readyload packet, I assume the upfront
> engineering costs would kill me. I'd have to mortage my house, then
> try to convince all the Kodak and Ilford followers to try my film.
> That's hard enough as it is.

> From: Jan Decher [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Rollei] Nano 60 vs. Rollei 35 vs. Yashica T4
>
> Is there a good APS slide film I could use?

>  is it possibly to buy (or somehow) find B/W
>slide film??

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

>On 14 Nov 2000, Mark Rabiner wrote, at least in part:
>
>> Roger the "guys" doing the slide shows were nationally known
>> photographers of varied ilks. Not just Leica cultists just having
>> climbed from under a rock! The pros are out there using it it
>> seems. mark rabiner :) http://spokenword.to/rabiner/

>Ok, but my reasoning still holds. Nationally known pros or
>whatever, still use a small amount of Kodachrome compared to
>the masses buying the E6 stuff. Sure they use a great amount
>of film, but it still pales in comparison to Aunt Matilda times
>zillions, doing the kids during the holidays.
>
>Besides, when did the wishes of the working pros have much
>sway with Rochester for the last 15 years or so? Bottom line,
>man, that's the name of the game!
>
>Roger, List-Owner

> From: muchan [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] forgotten gangware count down
>
> It was a bargain film form Ilford, just written "PAN 400".

> Being new to the world of medium format in general, and TLRs in particular,
> I'm interested to know what kind of film, both B&W and color, others like to
> use.  I've only found Ilford 400 locally, but could order others from
> someplace like B&H.
> Also, I've heard good things about processing with A&I Mailers, are there
> any others I should consider?
>
> Thanks for your time.

> From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [CONTAX] Re: zoned out
>
> Since film is made of wide sheets of base which are coated by emulsion and
> then cut into individual strips, I'd relegate the above to the "Photo Myth"
> category.

>In a newsflash I heard that Agfa will stop producing film, and will go
>entirely
>digital. Are you happy or disappointed ?

> How good are the (readily available) Kodak Max films for astrophotography?
> Are there better Kodak films that are easy to find or readily available Fuji
> films? What are the general purpose films for astrophotography?
>
> Thanks,
>
> James

> From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off topic: Rapid Rectilinear
>
> It is only recently that orthochromatic film has completely disappeared.
> I think the last pictorial ortho was Kodak Tri-X Ortho. Currently there are
> some ortho high contrast films still being made.

> From: "Golvala, Charez (London)" [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
> To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [CONTAX] DOF Was: Selective focus cop out
>
> One thing puzzles me however, why do you think that film improvement will
> adversely affect perceived DOF and therefore we may need a smaller CoC?  I
> would have thought that the CoC is a purely optical phenomenon and changes
> with the variables mentioned above and also with the enlargement of the shot
> and viewing distance.  Assuming an enprint and standard viewing distance,
> the optically deternined out of focus area would be the same whatever the
> film used.  On a grainy modern 1600 ASA film, you'd see the grain in in
> focus bits and out of focus bits............so too on older film stock.

> Surprised? Kodak has discontinued HIE Infrared Film in sheet sizes.
> Are any IR films still available in 4x5?

>(snip)
> Some people seem insistent on trying to get films that have been discontinued
> - T-Max or Delta 400. My advice is to let these go and concentrate on what is
> available so we keep the demand up enough to keep these films available.
>(snip)
> I am interested in hearing other people's thoughts.
>
> Steve Simmons

> From: Tom Christiansen [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Film data sheets interpretation
>
> All Fuji 100 speed negative film (as well as 160 speed NPS) has RMS values
> of 4. NPC has 5. The value is 8 for Provia F100 and 10 for Sensia 100.
> Everybody seems to agree on the fact that Provia and Velvia are the finest
> grain films available, so it seems like the definition of RMS granularity
> is measured differently with slide and print film.

>Richard,
>The 1962 "Amateur Photographer's  Handbook" supports you. Perutz is listed
>as a German film, period.
>Best wishes,
>Kevin

> From: "ross bleasdale" [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] APS, a "brilliant format"
>
> For Fuji APS slide film try  www.7dayshop.com and Kodak B&W 400 APS film is
> still available in the UK.

> Isn't the film's emulsion an organic gelatin? If this is so, and gelatin being a
> colorless or slightly yellow, transparent, brittle protein formed by boiling the
> specially prepared skin, bones, and connective tissue of animals, wouldn't
> various environmental conditions have an effect on these skin, bones, tissues
> etc.? I don't know but it seems amazing that regardless of the external
> conditions  our film remains consistent year after year.

>What I find amazing is the consistently found in film year in and year out.
>
>Isn't the film's emulsion an organic gelatin? If this is so, and gelatin being a
>colorless or slightly yellow, transparent, brittle protein formed by boiling the
>specially prepared skin, bones, and connective tissue of animals, wouldn't
>various environmental conditions have an effect on these skin, bones, tissues
>etc.? I don't know but it seems amazing that regardless of the external
>conditions  our film remains consistent year after year.
>
>Appreciate hearing any thoughts on this issue.

>From Greg Fraser:
> ....My question is why would you need a film speed of 64 or 160? Why
> not 75 or 150?

> From: David Morris [email protected]
> Reply-To: [email protected]
> Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Rollei] OT Paterson ISO 200 and 800 Films
>
> Dear All,
>
> Has anyone used these black and white films?  Who makes them for  Paterson?
> Are they any good - they are supposed to be "high tech" emulsions?
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Morris
>
>
> David Morris    ([email protected]@gn.apc.org)

> I've been reading about 200SFX.  Anyone have experience with this
> film?  It's seems to be much easier to work with if you want some
> infraredish effects by using it with a red filter.

Send the message:    SUBSCRIBE INFRARED   to  [email protected]
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *

        400F        EPL400X     E200 at 400
0.05    0.22        0.26        0.23
0.23    0.39        0.42        0.43
0.44    0.62        0.60        0.69
0.70    0.92        0.91        0.98
1.05    1.28        1.38        1.38
1.5     1.66        1.81        1.71
base    0.10        0.10        0.14
max D   1.85        1.81        1.83

Kodak 400X                  45 lp/mm
Fuji 400F                   55- 60 lp/mm
Kodak E200 pushed to 400    60 -65 lp/mm
Kodak 100SW                 60 -70 lp/mm

> From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 01 Apr 2001
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Let down by my Rollei
>
> Kodachrome is NOT dead
> long live Kodachrome!

>Was
>ORWO a post war version of a pre war company like Agfa?

>EFKE is not so good with flare and against the light subjects IMHO.

>Anybody got anything to say about photography?

>Kodak confirms plans to discontinue Kodachrome 25 film
>   Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, N.Y., said it will discontinue
>Kodachrome 25 color reversal slide film later this year.
>       Improvements in consumer versions of both Kodachrome 64 and 200
>films, which represent the majority of the
>   Kodachrome business, as well as performance advances in the
>Ektachrome family of films, have made these films more
>   popular with consumers. As a result, Kodak has seen a significant
>decline in use of Kodachrome 25 film. Kodak said it can
>   no longer justify production of products with extremely limited
>usage. Kodak will continue to offer Kodachrome 64 and
>   200 consumer film.
>       The company has provided retailers with a specific timetable for
>inventory planning purposes in the near future.
>   However, Kodak anticipates supplies will be available for most of the
>year.
>
>Now, what will we test Leica lenses with?
>
>Ken Lassiter

===========================================
Kodak Professional Ektachrome E 100 S
70mm x 100ft - E100S/SP475 - CAT No 110 1302
===========================================
Kodak T-Max 100 Professional TMX
70mm x 100ft - TMX/SP473 - CAT No 801 1702
===========================================
Kodak Professional Ektachrome Duplicating film EDUPE
70mm x 100ft - EDUPE/SP481 - CAT No 813 7523
===========================================
Kodak Ektapan film
70mm x 75ft -    /SP473 - CAT No 152 6797
===========================================
Kodak Plus-X Pan Professional film
70mm x 100ft - PXE/SP473 - CAT No 165 0480
===========================================
Kodak Tri-X Pan film TX
70mm x 100ft (no perfo) - TX/SP473 - CAT No 852 7616
===========================================
Kodak Portra 400VC, 400NC, 160VC, 160NC
Long rolls, but no info if 35mm or 70mm, no CAT code.
===========================================
Agfa Aviphot Pan 200 PE1
70mm x 30,5m (100ft) - P(perfo) - CODE 3GYSN
===========================================
Agfa Aviphot Color X100 PE1
70mm x 30,5m (100ft) - P - CODE EELTH
===========================================
Agfa Aviphot Color N400 PE1
70mm x 30,5m (100ft) - P - CODE 37XBM
===========================================
Agfa Agfachrome Duplicating Film CRD
70mm x 30,5m (100ft) DP (no code)
================================================

  Subject:          [Kodachrome] Kodakchrome film (KMM1074651C0KM)
     Date:          Thu, 26 Apr 2001 
     From:          USA Support [email protected]
       To:          [email protected]

>If you're not at all familiar
>with it, it's when you take either E-6 film processed in C-41

> I want
> to do some playing around with cross processing. Not even our lab tech  who's
> sharp, knows of who or exactly how it's done. If you're not at all  familiar
> with it, it's when you take either E-6 film processed in C-41 or vise  versa.

> Can anyone say why film has this 'natural curl'? This is more than idle
> curiosity - those of us who project slides have to wrestle with film  curl. I
> do my own E6 processing and notice that the film has nothing like the  same
> curl before development as it does when it comes out of the tank. If  it's
> too bad the projector can't get even focus from centre to edge. Can you  take
> bad curl out of film?

- --------------------
Dr. Alfred Zommers Ph.D.
PO Box 474
Box Hill
Victoria 3128
Australia

>I found an article on the film where the guy tests the film
>with Contax G optics:
>
>http://www.2pics.de/2pics/drf/gbft2.htm

>I've used E200 only in 35mm format and found it to be inferior to Fuji
>Velvia. Colors in E200 don't seem as saturated as Velvia, and that is
>only for macro flower shots. In the Hassie EL/M I use Fuji NPS 120,
>Professional 160, color negative. It's adequate for nature shots, like
>landscapes. I wish Fuji would make Velvia in 120 size.
>
>Anne B.

>My question is would the life expectancy be prolonged by
>putting it in the fridge/ freezer remembering this is non professional
>film and has
>been stored on the shop shelf and not in the fridge.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com              

Excerpts from their film list:

"35mm Film for the Miniature Camera"

Color Transparencies:

Ansco Color Daylight    ASA 12
Ansco Color Tungsten    ASA 12
Kodachrome Type A       ASA 10
Kodachrome Daylight     ASA 10

B&W
Super XX                ASA 100
Plus X                  ASA 50
Panatomic X             ASA 25

When you get to roll and sheet film, you pick up
Ektachrome, Daylight    ASA 8
Ektachrome, Type B      ASA 10
Tri-X Pan               ASA 200 (sheet film only)

>It's Kodak Tri-X.  I also found (and still find) some of the  manufacturer's
>shorthand names for their films confusing.  Check an archive for this  list
>and you'll find a small discussion here on it (as compared to TXP or  Tri-X
>Professional) whithin the last week.
>
>> I hope I'm not asking something really stupid.  What is TX?
>>
>> Gene

>Could part of the lacking be lower silver content?
>Dale
>
>Gerald Lehrer wrote:
>
>>  you really should discuss
>> the differences between a "physical" developer
>> and a purely  "chemical" developer.  There is
>> something about looking at some of my 40-50
>> year old Rollei negatives that is lacking in recent
>> negatives.

> I suspect the difference in the numbers is substantial.  Perhaps the
> number of people is only 10:1, but the difference in the amount of
> film shot by each, must also be quite large.

: Not always.  MF and LF photographers begged Kodak to make Kodachrome available
: in 120 and sheet sizes.  Kodak refused, even though they used it  internally in
: sizes up to 8x10.  Then, I think they made it briefly in 120, but 
: dropped it. I
: once spoke to a Kodak employee who gave the tired mantra "If there was a demand
: for it, Kodak would make it."  I told her the pros BEGGED for it and  Kodak
: refused.

>"Eugene A. Pallat" [email protected] wrote
>
>
>[small snip]
>
>> K-14 was a dye transfer process with many steps.  E-6 can be processed  in a home
>> darkroom.
>>
>{larger snip}
>
>Are you sure?
>
>I know that Kodachrome film does not incorporate dyes, and that it takes  up
>dyes during processing, but this is a far cry from what I've
>always understood dye transfer to be.  Dye imbibition, with three  negatives
>each producing a matrix that takes up one dye and is used to deposit the
>stuff on the print, is what dye transfer usually means.  That isn't K-14.
>
>Also, process K-14 is still somewhat alive, I'm still shooting KM 135 and
>Kodak is still processing it.  And at least a few independents have K-14
>machines as well.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Dan

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

>Read http://public.wsj.com/news/businessbox/article1.html from the Wall
>Street Journal about Polaroid's financial difficulties. The article says
>Polaroid, "...is giving serious consideration to a voluntary filing for
>bankruptcy-court protection..."

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

>This isn't a "Leica" question, however I appreciate the opinions stated  by
>this group.
>
>For years I have used nothing but B&W.  I am now going to start using
>transparency films, and will be doing my own processing.  The quantities
>will not be large; only  two to four  rolls per week average, and I'll
>probably use mostly Astia, or Kodak E100 series 35mm films.  My  photography
>is entirely available light, and almost all daylight.
>
>I'm looking for suggestions on developers to begin with.  Also is it  worth
>using semi-automated processors such as Jobo, or will regular tank
>development be adequate, and give repeatable results.  I've developed B&W
>for over 40 years, and know how to control the process.
>
>I'm not a "Bokeh" type person, but usually want extreme sharpness, and
>strive for maximum "in focus" in my photography.
>
>I do use the Leica M series, and have been doing so for the past year.
>
>Thanks,
>Stu Boyd

>I just loaded a roll of Kodak Elitechrome 400 for some 'misty' shots
>this morning.
>On the box it says: "Made in England by KODAK LIMITED".
>My conclusion is that film manufacturers have production plants all over
>the globe.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

>  > Indeed no Graflok back.  But the 2 x 3 filmholders are cheap and so  is
>  > the 2 x 3 film.
>
> Where is the film cheap?  Last time I looked, only Ilford was making it,  and
> it wasn't cheap.
>
> John

>At least two labs in Paris provide 48-hour turnaround on Kodachrome
>development.
>It used to be 24-hour, but it was recently increased to 48-hour (working  days
>only).  This is only for pro Kodachrome film.  For the "amateur"
>Kodachrome, the
>delay is 14 days unless you pay a few euros extra for expedited service.

>...Little known is the fact that Kodak still
> lists Panatomic-X in aerial roll sizes.

> Last year I shot a couple of 120 rolls of a Kodak ISO 1000 color print
> film.
> It was great, very fine grain and soft colors, excellent for portrait
> work.
>
> It seems to have disappeared, and I can't find any references to it.
> Was
> it replaced by Portra 800?  Anyone know what film I'm talking about?

> Bob Shell wrote:
> Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the  standard
> for motion picture photography and later for still photography?>>

>Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the  standard
>for motion picture photography and later for still photography?  I think  I
>remember reading that 35mm (and 70mm) could be slit down from master  rolls
>without waste, and I'm sure that may be part of the answer, but there  must
>be more.  Why 35mm?
>
>Bob

>Can't help you with the motion picture side but I've heard from numerous
>sources that the still side was the result of the film DPs wanting to use
>the same emulsions in a still camera to do inexpensive exposure and  lighting
>tests for movie work... the use of the 50 mm lens as a standard also
>(supposedly) derives from "normal" cinema lenses being used to make the
>testing as accurate as possible... double frame just made reading the
>negatives easier and allowing for better positives for "pass around"
>purposes...

>I wrote:
>
>>Bob,
>>The story is that Edison had a 70mm camera and was familiar with 70mm  roll
>>film.  When working on creating his motion picture system, he picked  this
>>as it was readily available, and had his lab order it in bulk reels slit
>>down the middle.  His lab perforated the edges in their own darkroom.   The
>>film width and perforation pitch became *the* standard for cinema
>>film.  Film frame dimensions were supposedly 14mm x 18mm, same as what  we
>>would call a "half-frame."
>
>Didn't make it horribly clear in the first posting.  Kodak (Eastman) slit
>the film before delivering it and Edison's lab punched the sprocket  holes.
>
>Errata:  14mm x 18mm should read 24mm x 18mm
>This is still a standard size frame for 35mm cince film.  Some of the
>wide-screen movies were filmed using anamorphic lenses to compress the
>image horizontally into the 3:4 aspect ratio of this frame.
>
>-- John

> From: Bob Shell
> Does anyone here know how it came about that 35mm film became the  standard
> for motion picture photography and later for still photography?  I think  I
> remember reading that 35mm (and 70mm) could be slit down from master  rolls
> without waste, and I'm sure that may be part of the answer, but there  must
> be more.  Why 35mm?
> Bob

>>Subject: Re: LF sales, # of users
>>From: [email protected]  (Ted Harris)
>>Date: 7/24/01 
>>
>>
>>I was not aware that 5x7 film had disappeared.  Sure, the emulsions availabel
>>are limited but it was alive and well the last time I looked (which was  just
>>now). At the moment Badger Graphics lists 9 emulsions from four  suppliers.
>>Ted Harris
>>Resource Strategy
>>Henniker, New Hampshire
>>
>
>I just received my first order of Fuji Acros in 8x10 and 4x5 sheet film  from
>Badger.
>
>Based on Ted's comment, I think a scarier question might be, "What  happens when
>Badger Graphic goes?"
>
>Take care,
>Tom Duffy

Date sent:              Wed, 02 May 2001
From:                   Kip Babington [email protected]
Subject:                Re: [Rollei] 120 Kodachrome film users

>The SR-71 reconnaissance plane flew from the base at which I was  stationed in
>the late '60s and early '70s.  RUMOR had it that one of the keys to its
>phenomenal resolution of ground objects from 15+ miles up was very wide  (foot
>or more) Kodachrome film in very long rolls.  I've heard that later they  went
>to satellite type sensors, but early on it was supposedly just film.  Of
>course, it was all highly classified at the time, and may still be, but  to us
>ground pounders without a need-to-know it sounded right at the Officers'  Club
>after a few beers.

Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP

Dan Kalish asked:

>Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?"

Because it's "Edison Size" film!

"35mm small format" film used in still photography was first created by 
Thomas Edison's laboratory for making motion pictures.  Edison's laboratory 
ordered reels of 70mm film from Eastman with the request it be slit exactly 
down the middle into two 35mm wide strips.  Edison's laboratory added the 
sprocket holes on each side.  It ultimately became the "standard" for 
cinema film and was known as "Edison size" film.  The film frame had to be 
made narrower than 35mm because of the sprocket holes along each edge.

Oskar Barnack (et alia) leveraged the near universal availability of 35mm 
cinema film in designing the "Leica A" and its film cannisters.  The film 
and film frame was turned sideways and made larger (about 2X) to its 
current 24x36mm size used for still photography.  The sprocket hole size 
and pitch has also remained unchanged.  His camera set the standard for 
35mm small format.

The following names all describe the same thing; take your pick:
- Edison Size (because Edison created it)
- 35mm (because of its width)
- 135 (Kodak's 3-digit film numbering scheme)

-- John

Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: "Thomas A. Frank" [email protected]>
Subject: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP)

>>
>>Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?"
>>

Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or 
the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK 
Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my 
Starrett electronic caliper)  would have been poor advertising?

Tom Frank

From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died yesterday--RIP)
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2002 

perhaps the confusion is that the 36mm in 24x36mm is coincidentally close to
35mm. the 24mm dimension is physically constrained by the space between the
sprocket holes, but the 36mm is an arbitrary dimension: the doubling of the
18mm cine format.  back in the old rangefinder days, i believe nippon
kogaku used 30mm and then 32mm as their long dimension before accepting the
24x36 standard.  and the old pens used 18x24mm on 35mm film.

-rei

> From: "Thomas A. Frank" [email protected]>
> 
> >>
> >>Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?"
> >>
> 
> Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or 
> the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK 
> Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my 
> Starrett electronic caliper)  would have been poor advertising?
> 
> Tom Frank

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina died
	yesterday--RIP)
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Thomas A. Frank at [email protected] wrote:

>>> 
>>> Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?"
>>> 
> 
> Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or
> the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK
> Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my
> Starrett electronic caliper)  would have been poor advertising?
> 
> Tom Frank
> 

 So howcome Kodak says it is 36mm wide?  This is in their official history
and says when Thomas Edison wanted to buy motion picture film from his pal
George Eastman, they decided on slitting Kodak's film for the original Kodak
in half for economy, and that original Kodak film was 72mm wide (but called
70mm).

Bob

Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Film Width (was Re: [Rollei] Re: My Retina
  diedyesterday--RIP)

you wrote:
> Thomas A. Frank at [email protected] wrote:
>
>>>> 
>>>> Why do people keep calling 24mm x 36mm film "35mm?"
>>>> 
>> 
>> Because calling it either by it's correct width, which is 1 3/8", or
>> the metric equivalent of 34.925 mm (I just measured a piece of KODAK
>> Royal 100, and it really is 1.375" wide, at 68 deg F, according to my
>> Starrett electronic caliper)  would have been poor advertising?
>> 
>> Tom Frank
>> 
>> 
> So howcome Kodak says it is 36mm wide?  This is in their official history
>and says when Thomas Edison wanted to buy motion picture film from his pal
>George Eastman, they decided on slitting Kodak's film for the original Kodak
>in half for economy, and that original Kodak film was 72mm wide (but called
>70mm).
>
>Bob
>
 Perhaps historically the first film supplied to Edison may have been 36mm
but the standard for 35mm motion picture film requires a width of 35mm
within very close tolarences. These stardards have applied since at least
the early sound period and probably long before that. 

  Slitting and perforating of motion picture film must be done to a very
great degree of accuracy if the images are to be stable. 

  I have a vague memory of an article in the SMPTE Journal of long ago on
the history of slitting and perforating techniques. 

  BTW, Technicolor, in their early days, used to buy un-perforated stock
from Kodak and do their own perforation because they needed a greater
degree of accuracy than Kodak could provide. Kodak eventually caught up. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (LauraK)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 03 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: Instamatic 120 Camera?

>  I never saw any Instamatic that took anythig but the 126 cartridge - which
>was 35mm film with a single sprocket hole per frame, allowing for a 27x27mm
>picture area.
>  Perhaps there was a model numbered 120 in the instamatic camera line.
>

All 126 or 110. Kodak's own history of its cameras is here:
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13pg2.shtml
Interesting reading. Kodak doesn't seem to have made a camera that took 120
film since the 1930s.

[email protected]
http://www.madmousergraphics.com
web design, print design, photography

From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Instamatic 120 Camera?
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 

    Kodak was always playing games with film. 620 was the exact same film as
120 on different metal rollers. Only 620 would fit Kodak cameras and no one
else was allowed to make that size film without running into heavy legal
opposition. BTW my grandmother's camera took a film called 119 - which was
the same as 116 save for spools - I never checked into the histore of these
but I tend to wonder if they were'n't each another form of 120 - same size
negatives 2.25x3.25 in the case of her camera.

  126 was the same story - Kodak merely cut a standard 35mm film with
different sprocket holes and then put it in a cartridge - holding patents on
the sprocket holes, and the cartridges. Other film manufacturers had to pay
royalties to manufacture 126 cartridges - few did. OTOH Kodak handed out
sweetheart deals to camera manufacturers since every 126 camera made took
only Kodak film. Consequently they had a monopoly on the most profitable
side of the business. The 126 was the most successful format of it's day
with cameras ranging from the simplest box to dedicated amateur level.

   Kodak killed 126 when the patents ran out, substituting 110 - this was
the biggest error they ever made - and they've made a lot of errors lately.
Despite heavy promotion the 110 format simply didn't take off like the
instamatic. The public started looking for something with the same quality
as 126 so the Germans and Japanese quickly filled in the gap with something
better - the 35mm P&S.

   Had Kodak not been greedy, and allowed the 126 to continue I think they
would still be in clover. Instead of letting technical evolution dictate the
lifespan of a product they let monopolistic greed do it - and pissed off
millions of people in the process.

   One doesn't even have to mention what happened to Kodak's next two BIG
Ideas

1) The disc camera.
2) 
   2) Trying to comandeer Polaroid's market by reverse engineering.

--
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
Old site with some pictures still up at
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony

"LauraK" [email protected]> wrote 
> >  I never saw any Instamatic that took anythig but the 126 cartridge -
which
> >was 35mm film with a single sprocket hole per frame, allowing for a
27x27mm
> >picture area.
> >  Perhaps there was a model numbered 120 in the instamatic camera line.
> >
>
> All 126 or 110. Kodak's own history of its cameras is here:
>
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/techInfo/aa13/aa13pg2.shtml
> Interesting reading. Kodak doesn't seem to have made a camera that took
120
> film since the 1930s.
>
> [email protected]
> http://www.madmousergraphics.com
> web design, print design, photography

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Why "35mm?" was Re: My Retina...
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2002 

Someone wrote:

> > Because it's "Edison Size" film!
> >
> > "35mm small format" film used in still photography was first created by
> > Thomas Edison's laboratory for making motion pictures.  Edison's
laboratory
> > ordered reels of 70mm film from Eastman with the request it be slit
exactly
> > down the middle into two 35mm wide strips.

Eastman did not slit the film. It was Edison and Dickson who did that. When
these two started ordering Eastman's film in quantity George Eastman agreed
to supply if Edison would agree to buy an entire "tables" of 200 ft long and
42" wide, uncut.
Only years after Edison and Dickson invented the 35 mm format did Eastman
supply film in that width.

> > The following names all describe the same thing; take your pick:
> > - Edison Size (because Edison created it)

Don't forget Dickson. As so often, Edison relied heavily on somebody else's
genius to do "his" inventions for him, in this case it was that of W.K.L.
Dickson.

From: T P please.reply@newsgroup>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica SQAi
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 

Karen Nakamura [email protected]> wrote:
> 
> The other problem with TTL/OTF flash systems is that the reflectance Off 
> The Film depends greatly upon the film brand and type being used. Just 
> look at the leaders of some different films, there's at least a 1 stop 
> difference between the lightest and darkest. So you have to calibrate 
> your flash TTL to the film you're using.

Hi Karen,

If this were true, no-one would be using TTL auto flash!

When Olympus developed their 35mm OTF metering (both ambient and flash)
in the 1970s, they found that the reflectance values of nearly all the
35mm emulsions they tested were within 1/3 stop.  That was before OTF
metering was in common use, and I suggest most of the newer emulsions
have had OTF metering very much in mind at the design stage.

-- 
Best regards,
TP

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Bronica SQAi
Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 

T P wrote:

> If this were true, no-one would be using TTL auto flash!
>
> When Olympus developed their 35mm OTF metering (both ambient and flash)
> in the 1970s, they found that the reflectance values of nearly all the
> 35mm emulsions they tested were within 1/3 stop.  That was before OTF
> metering was in common use, and I suggest most of the newer emulsions
> have had OTF metering very much in mind at the design stage.

Oh but it is true!
Hasselblad provided reflectance values of current film brands and types in
their manual to the Hasselblad ProFlash. Things may have changed a bit since
the 1970s.
However, despite it being true, differences are not that big (1 stop is
real, but extreme). And anyone using his favourite type and brand of film
soon discovers how good his results are when using OTF flash, and
(hopefully) adjusts accordingly.

From: [email protected] (russbutner)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 14 Oct 2001 
Subject: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell

Ode to Kodachrome
by Galen RowellRegardless of recent innovations, Kodachrome is the color film
of the century. Reigning supreme for more than five decades, it was so
universally accepted that magazine guidelines would state: "submit only
Kodachromes." The few living photographers who shot Kodachrome 8 x 10 sheet
film during its brief manufacture after World War II speak in hushed reverence
of its quality, archival stability, and an Ansel Adams image duped to 18 x 60
feet for Grand Central Station. 

Kodachrome was the first truly effective commercial color process. All previous
attempts were lusterless by comparison. For the first four decades of its
reign, it remained the most saturated of all color reversal films, to the
consternation of purists, who rejected its bright colors as unreal. While there
was no denying that Kodachrome colors were richer than those of a test strip
shot at close range in controlled lighting, nature is rarely like that. There's
no precise way to measure a film's colors against distant landscapes shot in
fleeting light, where even Kodachrome blues and greens pale into grayish-brown
murk. Supposedly color-accurate films continue to perform much worse for
scenics, because they lack the saturation to deliver the brighter colors our
visual system constructs in our mind's eye through haze, shadow, and the
mid-day blues. 

Like most revolutionary discoveries, Kodachrome was more the brainchild of
gifted individuals than of a broad R and D effort. Two professional classical
musicians, Leopold Mannes and Leopold Godowsky, performed their original
experiments in the bathrooms of their parents' New York apartments. After they
patented a two-color process in 1924, Kodak lured them to Rochester to become
involved with the Eastman School of Music as well as film research. Mannes had
gone back to Harvard to study physics in order to perfect the first commercial
three-color process. I've often wondered if his scientific background led him
to suspect what physiologists only came to accept a half-century later--that
the three different cones of the retina don't "see" color at all, but record
separate gray scales that the brain constructs into the sensation of color. 

Kodachrome was unique in not having its color dye couplers incorporated into
the film emulsion. This created extremely fine grain, but at a price. The
black-and-white emulsion has color dyes introduced into its layers during
development by an expensive, complex, multi-stage technique. Later Agfachromes,
Ektachromes and Fujichromes had color dye couplers incorporated into larger
film grains. (My 1960s Kodachromes are less grainy than my 1999 Ektachrome
100VS images, though far less saturated.) 

Kodak barely beat out Agfa to introduce the first practical subtractive
three-color process on April 15, 1935. Agfacolor, the first dye-coupler
incorporated film, came out the following year. Ektachrome was announced in
1949 after American troops in World War II had seized the Agfa plant near
Leipzig, Germany, claiming patent rights to the closely guarded process as "war
indemnity." 

Common wisdom had it that Kodachrome would remain unchallenged for fineness,
especially for 35mm work with considerable enlargement. The 1990 introduction
of Velvia took everyone by surprise, including Fuji reps who were kept in the
dark until days before the release of the impossible: a
dye-coupler-incorporated film as fine grained as Kodachrome with better
saturation and resolution. 

Just as today's younger photographers don't recall the world before Velvia,
most purists of Kodachrome's heyday were too young to recall the dull and
blotchy Autochrome plates introduced by the Lumiere brothers in 1907. The truth
is that a film can no more match the way our visual system constructs color
than a silicon chip can match the way our carbon-based brain cells construct
consciousness. A color-accurate film for textiles and flesh tones at close
range will always look dull as death focused at distant infinity. A richer film
designed to match the apparent saturation of broad landscapes (to which our
brains assign known colors to known objects, such as green grass or red
sandstone) will always make highly saturated reds and yellows shot in warm
light at close range appear garish. 

Kodachrome taught me a lot about how film records natural light. Had I simply
gotten saturated greens and reds without effort, I wouldn't be the photographer
I am today. Kodachrome never reproduced as green grass as I saw, as blue skies,
or as neutral flesh tones. I had to use a polarizer at an angle to the sun to
get a decent green and underexpose up to a full stop--not just the third of a
stop I use with Velvia or E100VS today--to get a rich red. 

A common shortcut to saturation was to seek out only yellows and reds in warm
lighting, the secret of the early success of Arizona Highways, a magazine that
attracted the masses but turned me off with one-dimensional sunsets, red rocks,
and fall colors that seemed to assault my senses rather than visually interpret
the natural world. I vowed to do something different and never sent them a
submission, having heard from a pro that nature magazines that aren't
publishing the kind of great work you believe you're doing aren't likely to
become enlightened by your latest efforts. They've found a formula that works
for them. 

I realized that many of my own Kodachrome sunsets, shot with the best
intentions of course, had much the same look as the images I reviled. How could
I get rid of that phony appearance of rich oranges and reds that might or might
not have been really there before my lens? The answer was to always include
subject matter at the other end of the spectrum, however unsaturated it might
appear. Thus I began including blue sky, blue water, snow in shadow, green
grass, or neutral rocks in my compositions to give credibility to magnificent
warm light for those who weren't there to see it. 

When I came across the books and Life magazine work of Ernst Haas, who used a
35mm Leica to create images where color became the subject itself without the
use of colored filters, I was deeply inspired. His 1950s images on ISO 12
Kodachrome appeared splendidly rich with a full range of hues, and I made up my
mind to emulate his color palette in the Earth's wild places. 

Shortly before his death in 1986, Ernst Haas attended a New York gallery
opening of my work on Kodachrome. We chatted at length about the film. He
confirmed the legend that he'd filled a freezer with ISO 12 Kodachrome when ISO
25 Kodachrome II came out, and added that he did it again in 1974 when the
newer and duller K64 and K25 were announced. He wished he'd stockpiled more,
because the new films had considerably less silver and color saturation than
Kodachrome II, the culmination of Kodachrome quality. We reminisced over old
KII (on which the image on the lead page was taken) and how Kodak introduced a
more environmentally correct Kodachrome with far less of that polluting silver
only after the Hunt Brothers had manipulated silver prices into the ozone. 

Yes, my film freezer holds unopened bricks of 1980s Kodachrome 25, but instead
of being purposely stored for future use, they are relics that reflect the
sudden end of an era. 

From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 14 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: Ode to Kodachrome---Galen Rowell

>From: [email protected]  (russbutner)

>Ode to Kodachrome by Galen Rowell ...

Actually it's an ode to the pre-1974 Kodachromes, if you read it carefully :) 
The Kodachromes introduced in 1974 (K-25 and K-64) "had considerably less
silver and color saturation than
Kodachrome II", which they replaced.  At the time they were still the best
films available, but that changed dramatically.  

Between 1974 and 1990 Rowell says he shot several types of film, including
K-25, K-64 and Fujichrome, but converted to Velvia as soon as he shot his first
rolls with it in 1990. 

To quote from one of his Outdoor Photographer columns anthologized in his book
"Galen Rowell's Vision":

"After 25 years of using Kodachrome ... I abruptly gave up on it in February
1990 after seeing tests of an amazing new slide film from Japan Velvia>".

The K films have lower resolution than Velvia, shorter storage life when
projected (longer storage life if not projected though), are more expensive to
buy and more expensive to process, and are only available in 35 mm while Velvia
is available in 35 mm, 120 and 220 for medium format, and both 4x5" and 8x10"
sheet film.  E-6 processing for Velvia is much more widely available than
Kodachrome processing.  Velvia has fewer problems with reciprocity (you can
easily shoot it out to 30 sec with proper filtration; the K films look terrible
much past 1 sec) and it scans easier than the K-films (try Digital Ice on a
Kodachrome :).

Velvia is by far the most popular film among the winning entries in the major
nature photo contests like "Nature's Best" or the BBC Wildlife Photographer of
the Year, usually preferred by 40-70% of the winning entries.  

Here's a list of a some of the top nature pros who are on record as preferring
Velvia ... John Shaw, Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, Jim Brandenberg, Frans Lanting,
David Muench, Tom Till, Jack Dykinga, Carr Clifton, Robert Glenn Ketchum, Tom
Mangelsen, and on and on.

Here's a list of the top nature pros who are on record as preferring the
Kodachromes ... (empty list ... I don't know of any).  There's a reason K-25
was killed by Kodak ... few people are using it anymore.

Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Since You Asked, Pete!  The Best of Obsolescent Technologies!

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
>Oh C'mon Marc.  Agfa does great retail business through their OEMs.
>Walgreens, and many others private label the Agfa film.
>That is where they make their money in North America. Do you use Kodak film
>or is that off limits too?

I use AGFA when available but it is not carried by any camera store within
a considerable radius of my home, Peter.  I am not interested in
private-label film due to storage concerns.  I do have one twenty-year-old
bottle of Rodinal which I use on occasion.  I use AGFA RA-4 paper for color
printing.

I use Kodak as a fall-back for color work, as I can purchase that
universally.  I use Kodachrome, Elite 100 and 200, and a variety of their
C-41 emulsions.  I use Kodak XTOL as my principal B&W developer, and will
use Dektol if I'm too lazy to mix up an equivalent.

I use Ilford for B&W work, primarily Delta 100 and 400 and XP2+ with some
PanF+, as well.  I use Ilford MG papers for B&W printing and Ilford fixer
for film and paper.  I occasionally use Ilfosol for B&W development.  I
also use Ilford chemistry and papers for Ilfochrome work.

I use Beseler RA-4 kits to print;  I mix my own C-41 soups.  I have odd
lots of AGFA and ORWO paper.

I develop my film in Kindermann tanks with Hewes reels.  I tray-process B&W
papers.  I have a Beseler rotary drum for RA-4 and Ilfochrome work.

I have a Leitz V-35 and a Beseler C23 Dual Dichro enlarger;  the Beseler
has a 2.8/50 APO-Rodagon and a 4/80 Beseler-HD (Rodagon).  I am looking for
a hell of a deal on either a 2.8/40 or 4/45 APO-Componon for the V-35 and
either an APO-Componon or APO-Rodagon to replace the 4/80.

What more do you want to know?

Marc

[email protected]  

From: "jwjensen1" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cold light
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2001 

Unfortunately, the Costco film (labelled Kirkland) is no longer available.
It looks like Costco did a complete sell-out to Kodak.  You used to have
your choice of Kodak, Kirkland, and Fuji.

I agree with Jerry.  The Kirkland film was great; 200 and 400 and 'cheap'.
I loaded up on it when they did a close-out.

John
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc James Small" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2001 6:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cold light

> Jerry Lehrer wrote:
> >Peter (and Marc)
> >
> >Agreed!  Some of the best 35mm color negative film I've used has
> >been the Agfa film sold under the private label of Costco (Price Club).
> >And it surely was inexpensive!
>
> Thanks for the hint, Jerry!  Alas, but I believe the nearest COSTCO is
> something like 400 miles from me.  I live in civilized turf.
>
> Marc
>
> [email protected]  
>

From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 
   From: lawrence reiss [email protected]>
Subject: RE: 35mm in a 120 / 220 back

A while back I helped someone do this by taking a
couple of empty 120/220 spools and loading them
with 35mm IR film.  To keep the film properly
positioned I wound two long lengths of masking
tape onto the 220 spools so that each formed a
thick guide ring on the shaft of the spool.  This
worked quite well.

I wonder if anyone has tried using an insert, 
such as the one Mamiya 7
uses for using 35 in place of 120. I recall some 
folks have simply rolled
35mm emulsion onto spools (tape) and darkroom 
loaded the setup, shot film,
and darkroom unloaded and processed the 35mm 
film. Again, only reason to
do so is special emulsion (IR) only in 35mm. Not 
very handy, but you get 
mf panos with the 35mm " ". Just a thought...

Lawrence

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Konica to discontinue IR 750
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:41:32 +0200

I have it from a reliable source that Konica will no longer manufacture
their IR750 infrared b/w film.

This product used to be made in a single batch, once every year, usually
around early spring. Local Konica sales people have been telling our
dealers that there will be no next time, in early 2002. :(

So, we'll be left with the considerably more expensive Kodak HIE and the
Maco IR film which is rather difficult to obtain in most parts of the
world as the only 'real' infrared emulsions. 

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Konica to discontinue IR 750
From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 

Just got confirmation from Konica's photo division, Konica 750 is
*not* discontinued, it *will* be produced again for a 2002 batch.
As usual, it is listed as unavailable now that the 2001 batch is
sold out, and will be shown as available again when the 2002
batch is out.

--
     [email protected] is Joshua Putnam
       http://www.phred.org/~josh/
  Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html

From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002
Subject: [HUG] Re: hasselblad V1 #1462
To: [email protected]

[email protected] writes:

>>  Got a pack of expired TriX offered to me free by my local store.. 
expiry date was a year ago. I took the pack (it was free!!) but am not 
sure whether I should shoot and hope for the best.  >>

This subject has been hashed and rehashed on the former Kodak Photography 
Forum, now know as the AOL "You've Got Pictures" forum.  The primary cause of 
aging in film, assuming it has been refrigerated or frozen, is gamma 
radiation.  It is all around us, all the time, and will penetrate anything 
including 10 ft. of lead.  Eventually (which might be a very long time) the 
gamma radiation will cause an increase in the film's fog level.  

But, as various readers have pointed out, the increase in fog level is very 
slow when films have been stored properly, and even the slight increase in 
fog level does not disqualify the film for use.  I have many rolls of Kodak 
High Contrast Copy (AKA Microfile) dated 1970 that have always been frozen 
and still give good results--maybe I have to bracket a little, but no 
problem.  I have been making slides on some Ektachrome Tungsten film dated 
1986 and the show juries seem to think the slides look fine.  I recall a 
story about Admiral Byrd, who returned to some arctic outpost after 20 years 
and found frozen film that was still good.

Hope this helps, at least a little.  Best regards, David Hodge

From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Identifying Ilford film spools...
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002 

Hi,

We were discussing the size difference of the new(er) Ilford spools a short
time ago.  Someone asked, how to identify the spool.  I responded saying it
had circular openings along the slit you slide the paper through...and while
doing (a whole lot of) processing tonight...I also noticed that they have a
cross (X) on the ends, instead of the normal single slot for the advance to
engage in.

Just thought I'd add that piece of data...

Regards,

Austin

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] black and white development
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Rich Lahrson at [email protected] wrote:

> I sent away for a sample of that Piezo stuff that's available.  I'm
> not thrilled and still prefer the look silver prints.  I suppose
> you're right though, at some future time, digital prints will be
> able to match silver prints and maybe further.  Along with
> this, we will see less choices in black and white films and
> papers.
> 

We're already seeing it.  Most of my favorite papers are gone, and
a number of black and white films have vanished, including Agfapan 25,
one of my long time favorites.

Over the next ten years I predict we will see a mass extinction of
black and white papers and films.

> I'm inching toward 60 and probably will not move out of
> the darkroom and use the computer because I enjoy
> analog printing.  But it seems doubtful that there will be
> any rush of young people clammering to learn the
> traditional skills.  All that will remain will be a handful
> of die-hard workers, much like those who print
> with platinum and wet plates.

Ah, but there is a difference.  Anyone with a half decent knowledge of
how to handle chemicals can make their own platinum paper and wet plates.
Those are low tech.  But when black and white films and gelatin silver
papers go, it will be impossible to make your own.

Bob

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Agfa was hived off into a separate company several years ago, and
at the moment is up for sale again.  A recent deal for the purchase
fell through at the last minute for unknown reasons.  I may have
mentioned here that they sent out a press release last week announcing
that they are dropping out of digital completely to concentrate on
their core business of film and photo paper.

Bob

> From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient
> 
> I believe 'Igee Farben' did indeed own Agfa, along with a boatload of
> other companies....Unless they've spun it off recently, AG Bayer - once
> part of Igee, owns Agfa. I once visited Bayer HQ in Leverkusen (sp),
> where it has been since before the war...amazing, chilling,
> place....fabulous manicured grounds - no need to ask who manicured them
> during the war - and above the massive main entrance doors to the main
> stone building is a protruding hunk of stone - which is where the eagle
> and swastika used to sit....

Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Let's hope not since I really like Agfa film!  Polaroid has been
plagued by ineffectual management since Dr. Land died, and is now
paying the price of hiring so many Harvard MBAs who had no clue about
the photo industry.  Kodak seems headed down the same road.  I'd
hoped Agfa would be smarter.

When Agfa was still part of Bayer I went out to Leverkusen a number of
times when they had dinners and other events during photokina. I noted
the same things you mentioned.  The casino at Bayerwerke is certainly a
posh place to hold press events!

Bob

> From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Revisionism and the Drood Quotient
> 
> 
> 
> Bob Shell wrote:
> they sent out a press release last week announcing
>> that they are dropping out of digital completely to concentrate on
>> their core business of film and photo paper.
> 
> And might this be described as "doing a Polaroid?" ;-)
> 
> B. D.
> 

Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Exclusive film deal 
From: Eric Goldstein [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>, [email protected]>,
        [email protected]>

> Wednesday, October 31, 2001
> 
> 
> BENTONVILLE, Ark. - Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has bought the rights to exclusively
> sell 35mm Polaroid film. Spokesman Rob Phillips said yesterday that the
> Bentonville-based company signed an agreement with Agfa, a German film
> manufacturer, to buy film under the Polaroid name. Agfa now controls the
> Polaroid name.
> 
> AP

Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] a "secret signature" of a R-TLR.. at least some
  R-TLRs ;-)

you wrote:
>Richard
>
>Sorry, but Manny clearly asserted that it occurred
>AFTER the 12th exposure, and possibly due to
>winding on after the roll is transferred to the take-
>up spool.
>
>He might have a very high-tensioned toothed wheel
>in his Rollei to cause this.
>
>Whoops!  I just checked some Rollei negatives taken by
> Bob Gill, of me and my AC Bristol, in 1957.  He used
>his Rollei, and those magic marks are there!  No question
>about it, through most of the roll too.
>
>Jerry

  I would expect that. The film is only the paper thickness away from the
teeth of the wheel at all points so the pressure marks can be continuous
along the entire length of the film. 

  I haven't looked to see of there are any signs of weaker double marks at
the very end but its possible the wheel could leave marks through more than
one layer of backing paper. Since other cameras have similar metering
wheels I imagine they would leave similar marks. I think someone posted
that they do. 

  A slight digression. My 1943 _Photo-Lab-Index_ has a page in the "cine"
section showing identification marks left by some 42 16mm, and 6 8mm,
motion picture cameras. Evidently, nearly every brand and model had some
sort of notch in the gate or pattern of holes in the edge of the gate to
leave markings on the edge of the film. If you have old home movies you can
probably tell what kind of camera they were shot with. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 
   From: Lawrence Kaufman [email protected]>
Subject: Print film bargain

Please excuse the cross-posting, but I thought everyone would
like to know about this deal. Seems like a good price for print film
users:

Until recently Costco Wholesale sold their 24 exposure,
200 ASA, 35mm Kirkland Signature color print film for
around $4 US. They currently only stock Kodak print film and
they carry no slide film at all.

The Kirkland print film is now being liquidated in Southern
California through the '99 Cents Only' chain for only 99 cents.
http://www.99only.com/

Good luck,
Lawrence

Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 
From: simonwide [email protected]>
Subject: 120/220
To: Richard Schneider [email protected]>

dear steve- would you like to have my 1963 letter
from kodak saying that 220 wasn't feasible? it was thunk by simonwide,
published in 1964 modern photography as a simon says column. i have correspondence
with rollie, calumet, nikor (stainless steel reels) and good explanation
how camera makers adapted.it could go out only as the complete letter,
not excerpted. richard second place on this. simon nathan

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] black and white development

you wrote:
>Dave and Mark
>
>Y'know, about 40-50 years ago, someone tested the
>difference in grain size 'tween negatives dried naturally
>vs. those force dried.  Can't remember the results, but
>I believe that nature won.
>
>Jerry

  Kodak did testing in, when, the 1930's, and found no difference. The heat
of drying did not cause any migration of silver particles in the emulsion.
The alleged gain in graininess is a myth. This is not to say that sometimes
excessive heat can cause the appearance of increased grain but its caused
by reticulation from slightly melting the gelatin. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Efke vs Maco
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 

ChrisPlatt [email protected]> wrote:

> Has anyone used both Efke and Macophot b&w negative films, 100 speed?
> 
> If so, how do they compare? 

They are identical.

Ralf

-- 
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.free-photons.de
manual cameras and picture galleries - updated 26 Sept. 2001
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Efke vs Maco
From: Huib Smeets [email protected]>
Date: 13 Jan 2002 

[email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:

> ChrisPlatt [email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Has anyone used both Efke and Macophot b&w negative films, 100 speed?
>> 
>> If so, how do they compare? 
> 
> They are identical.
> 
> Ralf
> 

Hi Ralf,

I hear this often but why are the developing times from, for example Efke 
R25 and Maco UP25+ so completely different in any given developer?

Huib

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Efke vs Maco
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

My guess is that Maco is re-branding the Efke 127 film for export.  The
Macophot box says "Made in EU".  I e-mailed Maco some months ago about this
and they said they have "many" sources for the 127 film.  That tells me it's
Efke.  I believe this only applies to the 127 size film.  Plus I checked
their website and there's no mention of a color 127 reversal film.  I assumed
(and hoped) that their 127 "reversal" offering would be B&W, so I could
develop it myself.

Huib Smeets wrote:

> [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher) wrote:
>
> > ChrisPlatt [email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Has anyone used both Efke and Macophot b&w negative films, 100 speed?
> >>
> >> If so, how do they compare?
> >
> > They are identical.
> >
> > Ralf
> >
>
> Hi Ralf,
>
> I hear this often but why are the developing times from, for example Efke
> R25 and Maco UP25+ so completely different in any given developer?
>
> Huib

Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 film containers
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

Not to take away from Yuri, but I get mine from Kiev USA.  It's not bad
stuff.  Comes in 32, 125 and 250 speeds, and in 35 mm and 120 sizes.  The
125 and 250 come in the plastic cassettes with screw on lids.  The 32
comes in no cassette at all!  It is foil wrapped and has a paper band around
it to allow daylight loading into a cassette.  Weird.  I don't use the 32
because of this.  The 120 has thick backing paper which some cameras don't
like. 

Bob

> From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
* Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] 120 film containers
>
> you wrote:
>> Very good, now where can I buy Smena
>> film?
>
> Contact Yuri Boguslavsky at [email protected]>  Yuri can supply ANY of
> this stuff, at a price, of course!
>
> Marc
>
>[email protected] 

From: "Brian Larmay" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Tech Pan being discontinued?
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 

Here is an excerpt from a mailing list I belong to:

Today, I spoke with two professional photographic supply houses I use here
in
Dallas and they both said Technical Pan film has been discontinued by Kodak.
They may or may not have a direct line to Kodak, so when I can find the time
(right now I have a very busy shooting schedule and jury duty this week) I
intend to go directly to Kodak. I'll post what I find out.

This is just the latest rumor that has been circulating now, but has anyone
here heard anything relating to the issue??

Should we start buying bricks and freezing them?

I personally love tech pan and use it for the newspaper I work for and also
my astrophotography.

It would be a shame to lose such a valuable film.

good fortune,
Brian

Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 
From: Michael Briggs [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Film Permanence

On 15-Aug-01 Les Clark wrote:
> Subject: [Rollei] Film Permanence
> 
> Bob, Austin, and others....
> 
> I remember the name of the researcher at RIT who wrote about film
> permanence; it is Doug Nishimura. What I read was a summary of his work
> in one of the newsgroups. 

Douglas Nishimura posted in rec.photo.darkroom on 4 Sept 2000 a long message
"Warning: Negative base deterioration" about the deterioration of cellulose
acetate film base.   Almost all safety film not using a polyester base (like
Kodak Estar) is on cellulose acetate.  Depending on storage conditions and the
exact manufacture of the plastic, eventually the plastic will deteriorate via an
auto-catalytic reaction.  As the plastic base deteriorates, it shrinks, which
causes big problems with the emulsion which isn't shrinking.  In some cases of
GOOD storage, this can happen in 40 years.  Under bad storage, much sooner.

Dr Nishimura also posted a long message about how to greatly delay this problem
by storing your film in the freezer.   His method is simple and prevents the
film from being subjected to excess humidity.   Don't just stick you exposed
film in the freezer.

Unfortunately I can't find either of these messages on the newsgroup archive at
http://groups.google.com.   Strangely, 13 articles from the end of the thread
seem to be there, but not the beginning of the thread.   The above details are
summarized from a printout that I made (how quaint!).   Somewhere I think I
have a printout of the second posting on the the storage technique.   Perhaps
someone else can try their hand at searching google.

On a related note, the disappearance of the digital version of this information
and the retention of the old-fashioned paper version might have a moral for the
debate on the longevity of film vs digital storage of images.  On the other
hand, I can't find the printout of the second article, for which the electronic
version should be easily locatable by searching the database, if it is still in
the database.

--Michael

Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: deanwst [email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]

Sorry for the OT post, but if anyone here has given up on their 126 cameras, you might want to know that Ferrania has a modern 126 200 ISO print film currently available("Solaris"). I got an e-mail back from the North American distributor offering to sell to me by the case of 30. I'm going to see if my local (Canadian) dealer will buy it for me, but if anyone here is interested in buying their own case, e-mail me off list and I will forward the e-mail I received with prices and contact info for the distributor.
 Dean ([email protected])

To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: [medium-format] refreezing film

The advantage to freezing film is that sometimes you get bargains in film in
quantity and
you can keep this film a long time and use as needed. (I just sold off a 126
SLR and with it
35 rolls of 126 Fujicolor which the buyer was glad to get).

I have found no problem in freezing and refreezing 120 film in its original
package sealed in foil inside the boxes.

Recently I was testing the focusing and shutters on Kiev 88 cameras and
found some rolls of (120) 1979 Ektachrome 400 in my freezer section in the
fridge. They had been in there for over 20
years and through two purchases of new refrigerators.

I have shot several rolls of this film in doing the camera tests.

My local one hour lab can process 120 film in c-41 and they have done a
lot of color negative and XP-2 film for me.

They have no problem in cross-processing E6 film in the same processor and
have each roll done in only 20 minutes.

The Ektachrome 400 came out really weird - not orange like a negative-
or orange like the usual E6 film cross-processed - but a strange BLUE.

This is I believe due to the film itself as nothing else is unusual about it
and
the film had high contrast (no fog) and was reasonably sharp.

Scanning some of this on my Umax Astra 2200 scanner produced a strange
Red/Yellow image and very artistic and interesting.

Just goes to show you.

- Sam Sherman

----------
>From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [medium-format] refreezing film
>Date: Sun, Aug 19, 2001, 

>shouldn't be a problem; the key issue is to keep film packed up in
>moisture proof packages so moisture doesn't get to the film and cause
>expansion in emulsion and other problems etc. You can freeze and unfreeze
>them all day long, on some rarely used film types I may put them in and
>out of the fridge a dozen times while waiting to need that oddball
>emulsion.  after years in fridge the base fog will build up a bit from
>cosmic ray and local backround radiation buildup, but that take's 5-20 years
>and not as bad as a few trips thru the xray machine scanners at airports.
>If the film has been removed from moisture proof packaging, it needs to go
>into something like that, such as a tupperware container with silica gel
>in it or a zip lock baggie etc. HTH bobm
>

From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 discontinued?

In the uk, this is the situation:

Delta 100  - No
Delta 400  - No
FP4        - Yes (5 pack)
HP5        - No
Delta 3200 - No
Pan-F      - No
XP2 Super  - No
SFX200     - No

I cant find any Agfa, Maco, Forte, Macolith,  Konica or Bergger B&W film in 220, can get:

Tri-X (5 pack) and Neopan 400 (5 pack)

> Hmm... I wonder what all those boxes of 5 in my 'fridge marked:
> 
> Ilford FP4 Plus Black & White film 220
> Ilford HP5 Plus Black & White film 220  are grin> 
> 
> some bought only a few days ago.
> 
> Have a look at the data sheets:
> 
> a href="/bti/redirect.html?http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/FP4Plus.pdf" target="t21Link">http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/FP4Plus.pdf/a>
> a href="/bti/redirect.html?http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf" target="t21Link">http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pdf/HP5_Plus.pdf/a>
> 
> Now 100 Delta and Delta 400 are a different matter ......sigh.
> 
> Bob Parsons.
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "mark blackman" [email protected]>
> To: [email protected]>
> Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2001 6:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 discontinued?
> 
> 
> > I dont see any Ilford film in 220? Or isn't this considered a pro film?
> > 

From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 220 discontinued?
To: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 

> From: [email protected]
> 
> In the uk, this is the situation:
> 
> Delta 100  - No
> Delta 400  - No
> FP4        - Yes (5 pack)
> HP5        - No
> Delta 3200 - No
> Pan-F      - No
> XP2 Super  - No
> SFX200     - No
> 
> I cant find any Agfa, Maco, Forte, Macolith,  Konica or Bergger B&W film in 220, can get:
> 
> Tri-X (5 pack) and Neopan 400 (5 pack)

i'm a real 220 fan.

in the US we can get HP5+ in 220.

the "Tri-X" in 220 is TXP (tri-x professional, ASA 320) not TX (400 ASA)

Also Portra 400 BW (kodak's chromogenic)  is avail in 220.

i don't see any fuji B/W in 220 here in the USA.

there are quite a few color emulsions available in 220.

-rei

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Super Coolscan 8000ED

you wrote:
>
>That depends.  Just because you have a wider density range, that doesn't
>mean you have more discernable tones, nor does it mean you have an actual
>wider image tonal range.  The issue of paper is entirely different
>though...it depends on how you print it.  If your printing process reduces
>the number of tones lower than both, and both have the same actual image
>tonal range (NOT density range), then they will be very close.  If one of
>your images has a wider actual tonal range, and/or more tones, and the
>printing process can take advantage of that...then you will see a
>difference.
>
>
>> Well, if a scanner is sensitive to, and can translate this density range,
>> will the difference be visible once the image is on paper, where light
>> travels twice (according to some) thru the ink?
>>
>> pk
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> You are confusing latitude with tonal range.  Slide films have
>> >> less latitude
>> >> but a greater tonal range, negative films have more latitude but
>> >> less tonal
>> >> range.
>> >
>> > I agree that positive film does have less EXPOSURE latitude
>> that negative
>> > film, but it does not necessarily have a greater tonal range.
>> It does have
>> > a greater density range.  Ability to capture more "discernable"
>> tones, or
>> > capture darker blacks, or whiter whites is not the same as film density
>> > range.  The film density range is only the difference between
>> the darkest
>> > part of the film and the lightest, and since positive film does
>> not have a
>> > film base, it has a higher density range.
>> >
>>

  I agree generally with Austin, but note a couple of things:

  "Latitude" is defined as the range of exposure which can result in an
acceptable image. For most negative films this is a very wide range. The
latitude of a film also depends on the range of scene brightnes to be
recorded. Obviously, the longer the range of brightness the more accurate
the exposure must be to place it within the range of densities of which the
film is capable. This disregards factors such as graininess and optimum
sharpness, which are also affected by densities. For minimum grain and
maximum sharpness densities should be kept low. 

  The "tonal range" of a film must be defined in terms of the subject
brightness range or the film density range. The second is a function of the
maximum density the film can record. Base density has no effect since we
are concerned only with the ratio of maximum to minimum density and any
base density adds linearly to all densities.

  The tonal range in terms of subject brightness range is a matter of both
film density range and film contrast. The contrast is the rate of change of
density with a change in exposure. A film may have very great density range
but extremely high contrast, so be able to record only a very narrow range
of subject brightness. This is typcial for process films which are almost
binary in response. i.e., the "input" of the film has a very sharp
threshold between the amount of exposure which renders the sensitive
particles developable and that which leaves them undevelopable. OTOH, a
very low contrast film is capable of recording a very large range of
relative exposures as different shades of gray. It doesn't necessarily need
to have a very long scale of densities to do this although the "noise" will
be likely less if the effective density range is larger. 

  Film performs what can be considered a mapping function on its input. The
characeristic curve is one way of representing this function. The curve is
more informative than a single number for contrst since the mapping
function is seldom linear.

  Since negative film is usually printed onto a positive medium the nature
of that medium becomes an equal part of the overall tonal rendition. For
pictorial use the usual combination is a rather low contrast negative
material with a relatively high contrast positive material. The positive
material is what, in most cases, sets the limit on the range of brightness
which can be represented. In particular, reflection prints are limited on
the highlight side by the maximum brightness of the illumination. 

  A rather wider range of reproduced brightness is had by using back
illuminated transparencies or projection prints. In the case of both
negative-positive and reversal positives the contrast of the image is
tailored to what is acceptable to the eye. While the maximum brightness of
a transparency can be substantially greater than a normally illuminated
reflection print, its still often limited in comparison with the original
scene brighness range. While it is possible to make prints which reproduce
a very large original contrast without cutting off at either end, such a
print, regardless of type, will look very flat to the eye. Our visual
cortex expects a certain contrast and much lower contast is does not look
right. 

  Reversal transparency materials for pictorial purposes are tailored in
contrast to look good to the eye. Since both sharpness and color saturation
tend to be associated with high contrast reversal materials tend to be
adjusted to present fairly high contrast images to the eye. 

  Also, the material is intended to deliver as close to original contrast
as possible in the mid tones, which is mainly what the eye judges in
deciding whether an image looks like the real thing. The same thing is true
for black-and-white reproduction.

  It is possible to make low contrast reversal materials. In fact, Kodak
did this for many years with Kodachrome in both motion picture and slide
size films. The low contrast stuff was intended for duplication rather than
direct viewing. Looked at directly it did not look very good. However, it
was tailored to match a duplicating stock so that the duplicates had
contrast similar to normal Kodachrome transparencies. 

  Reversal materials have inherantly less latitude than negative materials.
The reason is that enough silver must be left for the positive image. Any
emulsion may be reversed, however, emulsions intended for reversal may have
an excess of very slow silver halide particles to insure a good supply for
the final image. 

  The overall density range is not changed by the reversal process. The
"tonal" range, i.e., the range of scene brightness which can be recorded,
can be as large as a negative material (or at least very large) provided a
very low contrast final image is acceptable. 

  Normally, there is some variation in tonal range possible by choice of
the contrast of the first development but the range is not as large as with
a negative film because a certain range of densities must be achieved for
the reversal process to work well. This is also why there is a narrower
range of exposure which results in an acceptable reversed image, hense, by
definition, less latitude. 

  The contrast expected by the eye is one reason that compressing or
expanding orignal contrast (by Zone System methods, for instance) may not
result in acceptable prints. Here the idea is to produce a negative whose
density range is within the range expected by a printing medium of given
contrast. It is quite simple to fit a given scene brightness range
(provided its not really extreme) onto the range of densities of which a
printing medium is capable. However, especially when a very long brighness
range is compressed into the narrow range of a reflection print, the
results may not be at all pleasing. The print will look "flat" despite
having detail in both shadow and highlight.

  A note about reflection prints. 

  Despite much discussion comparing papers in terms of Dmax the Dmax of
nearly any printing paper is considerably darker than is usable in normal
printing. One can prove this by looking at a print with dark areas by
transmitted light. There will nearly always be detail visible which is not
apparent by reflected light. Further, the actual Dmax of the paper is
seldom reached by normal exposures. Again, one can prove this by making a
good print and adding to it a spot of very great additional exposure.
Expose the paper and put a mask over the print with a hole in it. Expose
the uncovered part to plain white light from the enlarger. After developing
inspect the print by transmittle light. This very over exposed area will
have pretty much the actual maximum density the paper is capable of and it
will nearly always be darker than any shadow in the normal image area.

  This capacity can be used to make a reflection print which looks nearly
like a transparency. 

  The key is in special lighting. This prnt must be illuminated with light
much brighter than teh ambient viewing illumination. A light box is a good
method. The right contrast and exposure for the print must be found
experimemtally, it will look very dark under normal illumiation but the
highlights must be clear, so it will also be of rather high contrast. When
in the light box it will have full scale and "normal" contrast, but will
have tremendous tonal range compared to a normal reflection print. This
works best with ferrotyped (glazed) glossy paper or glossy RC paper, which
have minimum surface scattering of light. 

  As far as scanning and electronic reproduction I think somewhat similar
considerations apply. The digital encoding system has some limit on its
range, depending on the number of bits and method of encoding. The range of
the original must be mapped onto the range of the digital encoding format
and the output mapped onto whatever is the limit of the final image medium.
For either reflection prints or transparencies the limitations will similar
to those produced by chemical printing. Electronic printing offers a much
more comprehensive means for modifying the mapping function, meaning both
the overall contrast and local contrast, than conventional photogrphic
means, but the same criteria of acceptablity to the eye still pertain. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles,Ca.
[email protected]

Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 
From: Frank van der Pol [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 120 and 220 films
To: [email protected]

[email protected] wrote:

> Therefore the only logical answer could be just plain part numbers.

They are. Most of the answer can be found at 
http://www.geocities.com/thombell/history.html but there probably will
be more sites on this issue.

Because of the huge number of different films, in 1895 Kodak 
decided to number their films in the order in which they were 
designed, starting with 101. So the number is meaningless with 
respect to its size. Other film manufacturers probably had to 
follow the numbering of Kodak.

Frank 
-- 
         Frank van der Pol Digitale Fotografie voor Multimedia
     Digitale catalogi - Slideshows - VR objects/panorama's/scenes
         http://www.frankvanderpol.nl [email protected]

Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 
From: Les Newcomer [email protected]>
Subject: roll film history
To: [email protected]

http://member.aol.com/Chuck02178/film.htm

620 was supposed to be 6 shots on 120 film for the amateur set, but at
the last minute they left the lenght the same as 120

The rest of the numbers were either arbitrary or 'next in line'

At one time this guy had a nice written history with the table at the end.

Les

[email protected] wrote:
> 
> At the very outset of this question about where the # designations came from,
> I pointed out some other Kodak numbers. There was no relationship to number
> of film as to its size, only 35mm desgnates size.  The numbers merely are
> like part numbers assigned to the films. 120, 620, 220, 130 etc.
> Why it keeps coming up about exposures, ?????????????,
> Let's go on to a better one, I know many of you will know this one - the heck
> with the 120/620/220
> Where did George Eastman dream up Eastman Kodak ?????
> Who made the first camera?
> 
> AJ
> ( Yes, I know the answers)
> 
> In a message dated 9/1/01 4:50:56 AM, [email protected] writes:
> 
>  To be complete on the hereunder list : on 220 film I take 17 full 360
> degrees pictures ( 15mm lens) on my LARSCAN CAMERA.
> 
> As I remember the initial question is : why somebody give the name of
> 120 and 220 to these film ?
> And not what is 120 and 220 film, I hope that all of us know what are
> theses films !
> 
> Is somebody who know the real answer to the iunitial question : why
> the numbered 120 and 220?
> 
> Michel DUSARIEZ
> 
> >The number of exposures on 120/220 film has more to do with the camera
> >than with the length of the film:
> >
> >120:
> >6x4.5  format      16 shots
> >6x6    format      12 shots
> >6x7    format      10 shots
> >6x8/9  format      8-9 shots depending on camera
> >6x12   format      6 shots
> >6x14   format      5 shots (the Gilde camera introduced this
> >format upon my
> >request)
> >6x17   format      4 shots
> >6x24   format      3 shots
> >360 cameras        up to entire roll, depending on angle of
> >coverage chosen and
> >focal lenght of lens
> >
> >220:
> >double the above numbers
> >
> >
> >In other words, one could introduce different formats, such as 6x2
> >panoramic format and get about 30 shots on a 120 roll, and 60 on a 220
> >(wow!). That would perhaps be a cheaper way than using an X-pan.
> >Advantage: no need to reload so often.
> >
> >Adri de Groot, Ph.D.

Date: Sat, 01 Sep 2001 
From: Matt Parker [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 120/220 film; ideas for enw formats
To: [email protected]

>Let's go on to a better one, I know many of you will know this one - the 
>heck
>with the 120/620/220
>Where did George Eastman dream up Eastman Kodak ?????

This page has an explanation of Kodak and other names:

http://www.kingsdr.demon.co.uk/riscos/names.htm

Matt

From: Ron Andrews [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Composition of film?
Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 

Andy Ziem wrote:
> 
> What makes up C-41 color film?  Isn't it a red, blue and green layer?
> And also there are UV-filter layers too?  What is this thing that Fuji
> has with a special 4th layer for flourescent lights?
> 
> Andy
> http://www.geocities.com/nitelitephoto/junk.html

     A typical color film has a structure something like this:

overcoat
UV filter layer
fast blue sensitivie layer
slow blue sensitive layer
yellow filter layer
fast green sensitive layer
mid green sensitive layer
slow green sensitive layer
interlayer
fast red sensitive layer
mid red sensitive layer
slow red sensitive layer
anti-halation undercoat
acetate support

The blue, green, and red sensitive layers normally produce yellow,
magenta, and cyan dyes. There are also masking couplers (they start out
as one color and form another color in the developer) and inhibitor
releasing couplers. 

     Fuji's first Reala film had a "4th" emulsion layer underneath the
blue sensitive layers. It was sensitized to blue-green light. Fuji's
literature suggests there were inhibitor releasers in this layer.

Effectively, these inhobitors made the film less sensitive to blue-green
light. Since there is a lot of blue-green light in fluorescent light,
this extra layer makes fluorescent light look more like other light to
the film. 

     This is not ther only way to get the film to "see" fluorescent
light more like other light. Other manufacturers tailor their spectral
sensitizer dyes to avoid the blue-green region.

     Fuji's current line of "4th' layer films put the extra layer under
the green sensitive layers. This makes it easier to apply this technique
to high speed films, but it makes the layer much less effective. It
improves performance a little and it provides an advertisable claim.

Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] No Fuji Acros for me!
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]

J Patric Dahlen at [email protected] wrote:

> Fuji makes wonderful color films, and I use them in my Rollei's. But I never
> buy Fuji B/W films. I love the skintones I get with Agfa APX 100, and Efke
> R100 is a beautiful old style film. When I want a faster film I use Tri-X. I
> choose to support this brands, not only since I love the resluts I get from
> them, but also to keep them on the market.

Noble of you!

With Agfa's current problems I wouldn't count on APX 100 being around, or
any of their black and white products for that matter.  The company has been
for sale for some time, and a recent purchase fell through at the last
minute.  They've discontinued all of their digital products, which is a real
shame since they had some great scanners.  Looks like they are going to
concentrate on color neg films and their line of minilab equipment, which is
where their strengths lie.

Bob

From: [email protected]
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Kodak Poly-Toner
To: [email protected]

I've just returned from Adorama, where I went to buy some Poly-Toner.  
Darkroom manager said he hasn't seen any for over a month, which tends to 
confirm the rumor  that Poly-Toner has been discontinued. He said that many 
Kodak darkroom chemicals have been recently discontinued, including the old 
standard Microdol. It's difficult to believe that Poly-Toner is no longer 
with us as it must be the most popular Kodak toner. It's so easy to use-- 
dosen't require bleach and dosen't smell -- and gives a wide range of tones 
depending on dilution and time. (sigh). 

From: Gannet [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: bulk film?
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 

"Joseph Shark" [email protected]> wrote:

>The attractive part saving the green$, is quite enticing for me personally,
>being that I am some what strapped for cash at the moment. I was looking at
>some auctions, and came across velvia 50 100' rolls going for $30-35, to me
>this sounds to appealing to let it go, considering that velvia costs me 5
>bucks a pop at b&h.

Freestyle is doing outdated Velvia for $30, or $25 if you buy 2 or
more.

http://www.freestylesalesco.com/clearanc.html

I've used Velvia that was -way- outdated (cold-stored, of course) and
it was fine.

Gannet
St. Petersburg, Florida USA
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 17 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: agfa, kodak film/chemical losses Re: huge -36% LF/MF

Not sure that AGFA is really out of the digital business .. they may be
dropping some of their consumer products but they just finished the
accquisition of a large digital imaging company and company press releases seem
to indicate that they are moving strongly into specialized, professional
imaging markets.  There is also no indication at the manufacturers level tha
they are dropping out of the black and white film business.  While it could be
true, whenever I hear this sort of thing I always ask myself if it is really
the manufacturer dropping the product or the retailer no longer wanting to
stock it in whta he sees as a small market.  Often, a call to the company will
prove that the product is alive and well and available elsewhere jsut not from
the retailer sho so adamently told you thta the product was no longer
available.

Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire

From: John [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.darkroom
Subject: 5X7 films ! They're back !
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 

	Received a note the other day from Kodak which states that
the following items will be available for the foreseeable future.
To put it mildly, I'm shocked !

	Black & White

		Catalog number: 143-0271
		100 sheets 5x7
		Kodak TRI-X PAN Professional Film 4164

		Catalog number: 143-0214
		25 sheets 5x7
		Kodak TRI-X PAN Professional Film 4164

		Catalog number: 144-3118
		100 sheets 5x7
		Kodak Plus-X Pan Professional Film 4147

		Catalog number: 822-6334
		50 sheets 5x7
		Kodak T-Max 100 Film

	Color Slide (daylight)

		Catalog number: 122-5325
		10 sheets 5x7
		Kodak Ektachrome 64 Professional Film (EPR)

	Color Print (daylight)

		Catalog number: 135-5825
		50 sheets 5x7
		Kodak Portra 160 NC

Regards,

      John S. Douglas   Photographer & Webmaster
      Formulas & facts on the Photographic Process
      Website ------------ http://www.darkroompro.net

Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Fuji Provia 1600 Discontinued
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>

> From: "Kevin Ramsey" [email protected]>
> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Fuji Provia 1600 Discontinued
> 
> 3) Is this a case of a company cutting a product that it perceives to be
> redundant, or something else (I'm counting on our industry insiders here)?

I think it is a case of a company cutting back on products that don't sell
very well.  Slide film as a whole sells only a fraction of the volume of
negative film, and specialty slide films like this are a tiny fraction of
that.  I expect you will see slide film pickings getting slimmer and slimmer
in the next few years.

Bob

Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT cold mirrors in color enlarger heads, DURST

you wrote:
>   Jerry Lehrer [email protected] said:
>
>> Personally, I loved Tri-X in that size,
>>though most of my prize-winners in those days were on
>>Kodak Super Panchro Press. (How many of you guys
>>remember that film?).
>
>Me, Me!
>
>But of course I am approaching Methusela. 
>Some days I feel like his daddy.
>
>les clark / edgewater, nj / usa

  I remember it and used the ROLL film version Kodak made experimentally
for a short time. 

  Kodak made two or three films with nearly the same name (a practice they
still indulge) Super Panchro Press, the original, was a Type-C pan film,
i.e., high red sensitivity. In addition they made Super Panchro Press-Type
B, with "normal" red sensitivity. This is the film most of us remember. The
Type-C film was more sensitive but tended to washed out faces when used
with flash on the camera. In addition Super Panchro Press - Sports Type was
made for a while. This was a very high speed film, I think Kodak's fastest
at the time.

  All of these films tended to shoulder off at fairly low densities. 

  I used to shoot stuff in highschool with a borrowed Crown Graphic and
used both Super Panchro Press - Type-B and Super Ortho Press. Ortho films
were popular for press work partly because they could be processed by
instpection under a red safelight but also because they yielded better
facial detail when used with flash on the camera. The combination of flat
lighting and the fairly high red content of flash bulbs tended to wash out
details when pan films were used.  Remember that press photos were all
reproduced by very low resolution half tone so details had to be very clear. 
  In fact, heavy retouching was someimes used to bring out details. Some of
the photos in the Los Angeles Examiner archives at the Los Angeles City
Public Library are more retouching than photographs. 

  Some of these may be seen on-line at http://www.lapl.org Click on
Databases and from there on Photo. The key word Examiner should bring up
some of them. 

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: "Jim Wrobleski" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT 127 film processing
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 

Or try these guys. They handle "antique" films. Not cheap!

http://www.rockymountainfilm.com/

----- Original Message -----
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2001 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [HUG] OT 127 film processing

[email protected] wrote:
>I was checking out a box of old cameras that I have and found a shot roll of
>127 film in it.  I know the odds of there being anything on the film are low,
>but I would like to at least make the attempt.  Any ideas as to where I could
>get this processed would be appreciated.

In your own darkroom, of course.  I recommend XTOL as the
developer-of-choice.

Marc

[email protected]  

Subject: Re: Infra Red 120 Film sources...
From: "JeffW." [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 

You might also try:

http://www.homestead.com/infrared/

JeffW.

> I buy mine from B&H Photo and the Film Shop.  Both are trustworthy and have
> never given me problems.  However, I don't know of any in Singapore.  I use
> the Macophot 820 IR film now (B&W) instead of the 750nm near-IR films.  It
> comes in 120 for about $5-6 a roll.
> 
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
> http://www.filmshop.com/
> 
> Clint O'Connor
> 
> "Pittas Marios" [email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Looking to buy some infra red 120 film. Can anyone recommend any good
>> mail order companies to order from?
>> 
>> Also, are there any suppliers of such film in Singapore?
>> 
>> Many thanks
>> 
>> Marios

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2001 
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: OT Luckyfilm website in English

Hi everyone,

It is off topic but some members of theis forum might be interested
to know something about Chinese films and printing papers and the
website of luckyfilm has an English version.

www.luckyfilm.com.cn

Zhang

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian B/W film impression

I have Smena 32, 125 and 250 speed films.  I use all three now and
then, and have no complaints about quality.  The 32 is very fine grain
but does not come in a cassette.  It comes on a 35mm spool with a
paper piece around it, so you slide it into a cassette and close it
leaving the end of the paper sticking out, then you pull the paper and
it pulls the end of the film out of the cassette.  Both 125 and 250
come in plastic 35mm cassettes like the old Adox ones.  Here in the
USA this film is sold by Kiev USA.

For Chinese film I have some rolls of Shanghai 100 speed black and white
that someone gave me.  It comes with English and Chinese instructions.  
It's packaged in standard metal 35mm film cassettes in clear plastic film
cans. Expiration on the batch I have now is November 2003.  I only shot
one roll, but it looked pretty decent.

I've tried sample rolls of Lucky color print film and this stuff was
simply awful.  My lab told me not to bring them any more since they
could not get good prints from it.

Bob

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001 
From: "KAHN, JEREMY H " [email protected]
Subject: Film-School   WAS:[Your thoughts - FUJI NPH 400]

My opinions on some color neg. films.  YMMV.

Consumer films:
Fuji Supera 100-200-400-800:  Pretty mild saturation, cheap, and nice color
rendition.  The 400 and 800 are much improved from the last generation.  I
recommend the 800, if you have to use 800 speed at all.  I'm not much for
the 100-200 speeds.  Too dull, and a little too neutral for my liking. Skin
tones are pretty darn good though.

Kodak Gold/Max 100-200-400-800:  A little more saturated, and the color
rendition is even a little warmer than the Fuji.  I'm sure that Uncle Ed is
using this in his P&S.  Not real fond of this stuff either, as it seems to
have a nasty tendency to get REALLY yellow under incandescent lights, and
gets positively SICKLY under fluorescents.

Kodak Royal Gold 100-200-400-1000.  More saturated still, but funny
tendencies.  Stay away from the 1000 speed at ALL COSTS.  It's arguably 
the ugliest high speed film on the market. Cheap too, so ISO 100 stays in 
my P&S.

Agfa HDC (or whatever) 100-200-400-800?-1600??? Again, a little mild in
terms of color renditions, with a little cooler skin tones than the Fuji,
and a bunch cooler than the Kodak.  This is pretty cheap stuff too, and I
used it in my P&S for a while, but I went back to RG for the higher
saturation.

There are also the C-41 Black and White films.  I like the Kodak Portra
400BW, and Kodak T400CN, in that order.  Beware these films, 'cause your lab
may very well screw the prints up, if you're not careful.  The local Wolf
Camera made them REALLY green.  The local pro-lab had no problem.

Pro Films:
Kodak Portra:
------------
160T - Made my top list recently.  A little expensive, but it seems to
render my 2 y/o niece, and my 2 y/o cat (unrelated, of course) pretty darn
well.

160NC/VC - My MINOLTA (see, there's topic in here somewhere) has NC for
people pics, and VC for scenery and sports loaded almost exclusively. 
'nuff said.

400NC - It's alright, but not great.  Again, it's a niece and cat thing...

Fuji NPS, NPH, ETC...  I don't use Fuji Pro films.

Hope this helps, if only a little.
-Jeremy

From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Myth and anti-myth

It is remarkable that the idea that there is a significant trade-off
between high contrast and low resolution still rides high in Leica lore.
As far as I know no one who holds his view has ever presented demonstrable
evidence or corroboratable measurements to prove this point. Generally a
high contrast implies a high resolution and the other way around. It may
be that a shift in focus plane may change this relationship to a small
degree, but the general correlation is evident. More contrast is higher
resolution. And statements to the effect that a "slight" reduction of
contrast brings a "slight' improvement of resolution beg, nay scream for
evidence.

Now to kill two more myths. Sometimes I feel like Buffy the Vampire 
Killer.

I have the Kodachrome films which I used as comparison for the 100 to
400ISO slide film test some weeks ago. Results will kill some preconceived
ideas. The King of all slide films is by now the Kodachrome 64, which
resolves easily 90 lp/mm, much more than the E100SW and even close to the
resolution of TP in normal circumstances. Especially noteworthy is the
excellent acutance, the great clarity of detail and the fine grain. A
disappointment was the K25 which at best was as good as the K64, with a
small gain in grain smallness, but not enough to offset the drop in speed.
The fading out of the K25 then is sensible. No added value. Sorry.

Big surprise the K200, which showed as expected a tight but visible grain
pattern, but a resolution that beats the Provia 400F at 70 to 75 lp/mm. So
the idea that fine grain supports high resolution is as false as the idea
that low contrasr supports resolution.

If you want to test the qulaity of your lenses, there is only one easy
way: use K64! and even K200 will show the defects of most lenses. Do some
actual testing!

I also had the opportunity to test the surfaces of filters on an
interferometer. Results will kill another myth. I used four different BW
filters in several colours (not relevant for testing, but to show that
there must be different batches).

Results? Take a deep breath: NO, absolutely NO image degradation by the
filter as all surfaces of the four filters were absolutely plane to the
highest possible degree. At worst only one interferometer stripe for the
experts.

Of course secondary reflections are possible. But the commonly held notion
that the addition of the filter adds two surfaces and by that fact should
degrade the image quality is simply not supported by measurements.
A well made filter in front of the lens will NOT make a drop of image
quality!

These results show that myths are fine if you wish to cling to stories that
seem sensible because they are repeated over and over again and even have
been 'explained' to some degree. But so the flatness of the earth had its
followers and scientifically based stories. But only measurements bring 
the facts.

Erwin

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2002 
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Back to Kodachrome

Hi Bob

Jack Coote wrote in his book "The Illustrated History of Colour Photography"
(Fountain Press, 1993), Japanese film manufacturers were already making colour
reversal films prior to WWII. Konishiroku (now Konica) made a Kodachrome-type
colour film in 1940.  Fuji made something similar(at least in emulsion make-up
and processing) in 1948.

When captured Agfa coupler-incorporated technology was released by the
Allies for everyone to pick, Oriental Photo Industry used this as basis
for their colour films in 1953, Fuji followed suit by 1958, and
Konishiroku (aka 'Sakura') by 1959.  [ref. pages 149, 156,& 170] No
mention was made when the Japanese makers decided to make their films
Kodak process compatible.

Interestingly, Agfa colour technology in both negative and positive types
became the basis of so many colour materials made by other manufacturers.
Original Agfa colour or its modification did live to a longer extent in
the former east bloc well into the 1990s- as "ORWO" colour.  Sound like
the Kiev rf, doesn't it?:)

Jay

>Interesting.  I first encountered Fuji slide film in the
>late 60s and didn't know it existed before then.
>
>Bob

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 08 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M series cameras?

Javier Perez wrote:
>I think they may have signed something agreeing to respect
>western patents after a certain year. The M mount was patented in the
>50s I think
>and could not be stolen for war reparations by any of the allies.

By definition, "war reparations" are not theft.  They are the legal
property of the winning powers.  Kodak's Ektachrome, for instance, is the
result of Agfa's color-film technology as seized in 1945.

The M39 mount was patented in 1929, so any patents on it expired in 1949.
The M mount was patented in 1949, so any patents on it expired in 1969.

I have never heard of a Soviet agreement to respect non-Warsaw Pact
patents, and they certainly did not do so even if they agreed to this.
Check out the lens diagrams for SPS MF lenses against their Zeiss 
exemplars!

Marc

[email protected]

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M series cameras?

Marc James Small at [email protected] wrote:

> Kodak's Ektachrome, for instance, is the
> result of Agfa's color-film technology as seized in 1945.

Are you sure?  I know that the Ansco (later GAF) color films were derived
from Agfa's color technology, but the Kodak films are quite different.

Bob

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica M seriescameras?

Bob Shell wrote:
>Are you sure?  I know that the Ansco (later GAF) color films were derived
>from Agfa's color technology, but the Kodak films are quite different.

Yes, I am certain of this.  Kodak sent a team to debrief the AGFA techs in
1945 and visited the Wolfen plant before the Soviets locked it up.  I am
certain that Kodak had known the details of the process before this and
that they improved upon it, but Kodak's E-1 process was derived from AGFA
technology.

Marc

[email protected] 

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 7 Jan 2002
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Why Russian didn't copy Leica Mseriescameras?

Marc

Jack Coote's book, THE ILLUSTRATED HISTORY OF COLOUR PHOTOGRAPHY says the
same thing too.  He lists Ilford, ORWO, Ferrania, Fuji, Konishiroku,and
Ansco/GAF as the companies who benefitted from AGFA colour technology.
ORWO apparently held on the original Agfacolor until the late 80's.  The
processing given in a 1980's edition of their book ORWO-FORMULAE is
similar to that of early Agfacolor.

Konishiroku was said to have a Kodachrome-type colour film in 1940, and
Kodak didn't seem to mind.  Eastman was even said to have visited their
company in the '30s.  Fuji had one too after the war, but abandoned it in
favour of the AGFA type materials.

But did Kodak use the 'long-chain' coupler anchors which AGFA used for
their first Ektachrome materials?

AGFA was also first to make colour negative/positive materials, using a
cine version for "Munchausen".  How did Kodak develop their Kodacolor
rollfilm in the 1940's?

Jay

Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 
From: Robert Lilley [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Films and soups - The Rip Van Winkle Effect

I'm just getting back into photography after a twenty-year absence.  These
past years have been devoted to computers and the digital revolution in
printing and graphic arts.  While this has been good for my career, it has
not helped my B & W luddite soul.  In any event, it would seems that the
Great Yellow Father has changed its line of film and chemistry found in the
average camera store (NW, New Jersey) if you find much in the way of
darkroom stuff at all.  Like Rip Van Winkle, I went to sleep with a roll of
Panatomic X in my hand and woke up to TMAX (?) and little digital cameras
everywhere!

I am kind of upset with Kodak as they are losing the graphic arts market.
Their last good product was the line of Ultra Tec films and chemistry, which
they discontinued.  Agfa is becoming the "Great Red Father" with Fugi as a
close second in this industry.  However, this is not so in the photographic
market that I am aware of.  I cannot find a roll of Agfapan or Ilford 120 on
any shelf here in rural America.  As I have to mail order film and
chemistry, what do you all recommend I start with, calibrate with and would
be happy staying with?

Thanks for your time.

Rob Lilley with an empty Rollieflex 3.5 F in hand!
Belvidere, NJ

From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] APS out ?

BJP Quote

"One of the world's leading camera manufacturers is switching its
research and development team away from the Advance Photo System format
in favour of digital.

The decision by Minolta to stop developing new APS camera models
provides the first sign that the 24mm format, introduced just over five
years ago, may be entering its first death throws."

Jim

from leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Film survey.

You forgot the medium speed catagories...

True favorites are listed first.

1. Slow daylight color print film.   - Agfa Portrait 160 & Kodak NC 160
2. Medium daylight color print film. - Kodak VC 400
3. Fast daylight color print film.   - Fuji 800
4. Color print film for a combination of daylight & artificial light. -
Any Fuji 4-layer film
5. Slow color slide.   - Velvia
6. Medium color slide. - Provia 100F
7. Fast color slide.   - Provia 400F
8. Slow black and white.   - Efke KB 25
9. Medium black and white. - Agfa APX 100, Efke KB 100
10. Fast black and white.  - Tri-X 400, Agfa APX 400

Jim

[Ed. note: another favorite Kodak film discontinued by the bean counters...]

Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2002 
From: John Lehman [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Verichrome Pan

"steven arterberry" [email protected] wrote

>Is Verichrome Pan gone?  I tried to find some
>yesterday, and it is being hoarded by someone.

As mentioned, it is being discontinued this summer.  I
just bought a five year supply; I suspect other fans
have too :-(

=====
John Lehman

Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku

David Seifert wrote:
>It
>is my understanding that the peculiar frame size was an export restriction
>designed to protect the home market.  As soon as the restriction was
>limited Nikon switched to the standard 24x36.

Well, no.  Nikon first moved to 24 x 34, THEN to 24 x 36.  Big Yaller just
would NOT agree to process 35mm Kodachrome in anything other than 24 x 36.

Marc
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 23 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: Why doesn't Kodak make Kodachrome in 120 rolls?

>From: [email protected]  (Willem-Jan Markerink)

>I am also quite sure one of them came in 4x5", or even 8x10"....probably
>K64, as so much resolution as K25 offers is overkill in these formats)

Kodachrome was available in the late 1940's in 8x10" sheet film (and maybe 4x5"
as well), but this was well before K64 and K25 were introduced in the
mid-1970's.  I think it was an ASA 8 or 12 film back then, with just one
flavor.

There's a funny story about Eastman Kodak inquiring of Edward Weston "if you
would like to make an 8x10 Kodachrome transparency for us of Point Lobos" for
Kodak's advertising.

Weston turned them down, saying he had no knowledge of (or apparently little
interest in) color photography technique.

Kodak sent him 24 8x10 Kodachromes anyway so he shot them in one session and
returned them to Kodak for processing.

Kodak decided to use seven of them for advertising, paying $250 each.  After
receiving this much money (a nice sum in those days) Weston said "I decided I
like color" after all (grin).

Bill

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Polaroid collection.

Bill Bresler at [email protected] wrote:

> It's interesting... I do Polaroid SX-70 manipulations every now and then. A
> year ago the SX-70 Time-Zero film was becoming very scarce around here.
> (Southeastern Michigan)  Since the bankrupcy announcment the film has become
> almost plentiful, even in drugstores, and a lot fresher than before. What's up
> with that? I'm still stockpiling.
> Bill Bresler

I don't have a clue about that one!

I suspect SX-70 film will disappear in the not too distant future.

Bob

Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 
From: speedgraphic2000 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Re: 120 vs 620 film

--- In medium-format@y..., metcalf@a... wrote:
> Thanks for tracking down a website for the Honeoye Falls NY firm whose ad I
> couldn't find in Shutterbug.  I long ago got rid of my 130 and 122 cameras or
> I might be tempted to try them out.
>     Norm Metcalf, Boulder CO
>
> loslosbaby wrote:
>
> > --- In medium-format@y..., metcalf@a... wrote:
> > > There were some folders made that had spring-loaded segmented lugs
> > so
> >
> > http://www.filmforclassics.com
> >
> > Looks like they have all the goodies, and even weirder ones.
> >
> > G.

Here's another one for you: Central Camera Company in Chicago. There
e-mail address is  and they have every
conceivable extinct format. I have not used their service, but it
looks good.

Good luck.
Thom

From Rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Efke in the U.S.

If Efke films are hard to find, it can be good to know that they also are
sold as Macophot UP 25c and UP 64c. I think www.onecachet.com sells Maco
films. Efke R100 in 127-film is sold by B&H as Maco UP100

/Patric

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Polaroid collection.

Richard Knoppow at [email protected] wrote:

> My understanding is that many Polaroid photographic materials are
> actually made for them by Kodak and/or others. That could be helpful since
> there is no overhead in the form of maintaining a physical plant and payroll.
> I think Polaroid may be more vulnerable than conventional materials to
> the inroads of digital photograpy because digital offers instant
> gratification, or at least rapid access images, and of potentially higher
> quality.

Digital is killing Polaroid's instant picture market.

Fuji makes the instant film that they outsource, not Kodak.  Agfa makes the
35mm C-41 film they sell.  SX-70 and other non-peel-apart films are made
by Polaroid in their own facilities.

Bob

From: David Littlewood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: out of date film
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 

Bill B [email protected] writes
>I noticed that B&H has a few specials on out of date film.  The dates range
>anywhere from 9/00 for 4x5 Ektachrome (about US$30 cheaper than fresh film)
>to 10/01 for 35mm Velvia (about US$1.50 cheaper than fresh film).
>
>I tend to shoot a lot of Velvia for a non-pro (5 to 10 rolls/wk).  The 4x5
>Ektachrome is attractive since I just rediscovered my dad's old Busch field
>camera and have begun to use it (well, experiment with it).
>
>My questions are:
>1)  is it OK to use out of date film?
>2) if it is OK, is there a rule of thumb as to when the film is just too
>old?  (My assumption hear is that B&H stores it in the correct environment)
>
>Any advise/opinions are greatly appreciated.

We discussed this a week or two ago ("Using Film Past Expiration Date",
IIRC); you may be able to find it in google. To save you time, and at
the risk of incurring the wrath of the NG police, here was my
contribution:

QUOTE

Kept normally, I doubt if any kind of film will be measurably different
two months later. For *unexposed* film, the deterioration past the
"expiry" date would be minuscule, probably for years. I have used b&w
and reversal film several years past its expiry date with no visible
effect.

However, the temperature the film is kept at will make a difference. The
type of chemical reaction involved in film deterioration will
approximately double in rate with every 10 degree (C, of course)
temperature rise. Thus film which might start showing fog after 1 year
in a hot room may last 4 or more years in a fridge, or 10-20 in a
freezer. However, thermal reactions are not the only cause of
deterioration, fogging from cosmic rays will also occur. This will be
proportional to film speed and unaffected by temperature. It should be
negligible for most practical purposes though.

In the case of the film I used after 5 years or so, it had been in a
fridge. B&W film will show an increase in base fog over the years, and
maybe a small loss in film speed. Colour film will show these effects
and also some colour shifting as different dye layers age at different
rates. However, as I say, kept well the film should be good for quite a
long time after its expiry date.

The position is however markedly different for *exposed* film. Here the
latent image can deteriorate quite quickly, and the film should where
possible be processed within a few weeks of exposure. Again, this is
directly affected by the temperature at which the exposed film is
stored, so if you have to keep it for more than a week pr two, try to
refrigerate it (in a sealed container to keep out damp).

The simple answer to your question, I am quite sure, is that any weird
results are down to photographer error, unless the film has been stored
in a sauna.

END QUOTE

Bottom line: the film you mention should be OK, certainly for
non-critical work. The colour balance may have shifted a bit, but if
that mattered a lot to you, you probably wouldn't be asking the question
here anyway.
--
David Littlewood

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 
From: Alan Magayne-Roshak [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #178
...

Kodak just announced that Verichrome Pan will be discontinued this July.
8^(

Alan Magayne-Roshak
(also a Bergheil user)

Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei Users list digest V10 #178
...

 I don't think the original Verichrome was _that_ awful. I used lots of it
and have printed negatives made on it fairly recently. They look very good.

  It was fairly fine grain for the time. The speed was ASA-50 daylight.
Since the ASA speeds of the time had a 2.5x safety factor Verichrome would
be about an ISO-100 or 125 film now. The green sensitivity was quite high.
Ortho films resulted in sharper pictures when used in simple box cameras
since they eliminated the worst fringing from the non-color-corected simple
lenses.

  All of the film manufacturers made box camera film. Ansco/Agfa's
equivalent to Verichrome was Plenachrome. Verichrome was available in roll
sizes and in film packs.

  Verichrome was replaced by Verichrome-Pan in, I think, 1958. Its actually
a very modern film, quite fine grain with good resolution and very good
exposure latitude. Too bad its going. Its one of the few films, maybe the
only film, available in rolls for Cirkut cameras.

  Maybe Kodak could be convinced to put Plus-X up in its place. The roll
film version of Plus-X is similar to Verichrome Pan.
...
>> >>The old films must have a thicker film base, I think. Try a test roll
>> >>in your film holder to see how flat the film is before you use it!
>> >
>> >Verichrome Pan is still available. Isn't it quite similar to the films
>> >that were around when that roll film back was made?
...
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fridge or Freezer ?

Pablo Kolodny at [email protected] wrote:

> I got a lot of Scala 120 to feed my Rollei.
> Since in Buenos Aires we're "enjoying" our summer temperatures (almost 100
> of yours Fahrenheit ) I wanted to keep rolls off hot.
> What would you suggest, fridge or freezer to better preserve film ?
> I know that they keep in the fridge but what about keeping film in the
> freezer ? is it better or what ?
>
> very WARM regards to all from this terrible summer.

It doesn't hurt film to freeze it.  Just leave it in the sealed packaging
and let it completely thaw and come to room temperature before opening it.

The only exception is Polaroid film, which should not be frozen because
it can mess up the developing gel.

Bob

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 
From: Marc Attinasi [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Fridge or Freezer ?

I seal them in ziplock sotrage bags because modern freezers, with
auto-defrost, tend to dry out terribly, and with 35mm at least, there is
no moisture barrier in the packaging. Also, I use the middle of the
freezer as the walls are often heated up to remove the frost, and I
don't want my slide film getting colled and warmed every day ;)

FWIW: I stored some K25 Pro (35mm) that way and it still went bad within
a half-year of the expiration date.  It was still usable, but tended to
be really warm-toned (too much red and orange).  Too bad, I lost 10
rolls of a very nice film that will never come back :(

- marc

From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Stupid 501CM questions
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 

Mxsmanic [email protected] writes
>I was very surprised when shopping around today to discover that there
>are apparently no film canisters for 120 film.  You'd think that someone
>would manufacture plastic canisters to hold exposed and unexposed film.
>I can't believe that I'm expected to walk around with an open spool of
>exposed film in my pocket.  What protects it from light and dust?

Once you've shot it, you stick it down with the sticky stuff (best to
remember to fold the very end back underneath to make it easier for the
lab). It's not really a problem (certainly never caused me any problem).

If you really feel the need for better protection, there's a few
solutions:

1) The 'Mini M&M' tubes (available in most good sweet shops) hold a roll
of 120, made out of plastic and seal quite well.

2) I think you can buy dedicated 120 roll canisters from
http://www.mx2.com or a place called '7daysshop' (they probably have a
website, but I'm not sure what it is). At least they used to be
available about 1UKP each.

3) I have a couple of muti-purpose film containers that are designed to
hold 6x 35mm or 3x 120 that were free with photo magazines. These are
bright yellow, and I've seen one with a Nikon logo somewhere else. A bit
of work with a sharp knife, allows an extra 120 roll across the tops of
the other three.
--
John

Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

From: Sam Reeves [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002

Largformat wrote:
> My reasons for questioning the demise of sheet film is looking at the number of
> films that are currently available. Not only from my list last Fall but in the
> fact that Kodak recently revivied several more sheet films in the last month or
> so.

What in the world did they revive?  Please enlighten me.

> Yes, digital is having a major impact on image capture but I just don't see any
> facts supporting these conspiracy theories obout sheet film going away. IMHO
> this is just armchair pontification.

The recent history of Kodak is
they make a film difficult to get or it's
in one quantity before they end production.  It's happened to Kodachrome
25, Pro 100, Pro 400, High Speed Infrared sheets, Ektar 25, Recording
Film 2475 and Ektachrome Lumeire.  Going to the 50 sheet boxes for Tri-X
as your only option is a warning flag to me, and what's not to say
they'll try to pull TXT off the market too?  As for the film business,
here's how bad it's getting.  There are only two Kodak reps for the
whole state of California, handling that film and processing business.
My dealer is lucky if he sees the rep, and plus they recently annulled
his account which he held for the better part of 30 years.  Does that
sound like they really want that film business?  The unfortunate facts
are that film is dying with Kodak.  Believe the conspiracy, and have a
big freezer while you're at it!

Sam Reeves
armchair pontiff
--
Sam Reeves Photography - http://www.sysresearchassoc.com/srphoto/

[Ed. note: Oh no, not Plus-X ;-(  aaaarggghhhh!!!!]
From: [email protected] (Dan Kalish)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again
Date: 24 Mar 2002

[email protected] (T Pole 1) wrote ...
> sam i think you'll find that they also upped the price

Isn't Kodak discontinuing Plus-X in all sheet film formats?  PXT.
Aren't they stopping shipments March 31 and hope supplies will be
totally depleted by October?

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f8/f8.jhtml
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e103bf/e103bf.pdf

Dan

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Oh, forgot about ORWO

Maybe someone here knows if the old ORWO films were made after the old Agfa
Isopan recipes?

ORWO stood for "Original Wolfen", and was the original Agfa factory that
ended up in the east zone.

There are films sold under the ORWO name today, but I don't think they are
the old films.

/Patric

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Isopan F

>From: Richard Knoppow

>   Orthopanchromatic or Orthochromatic? Two different things orthochromatic
>means sensitive to blue and green but not sensitive to red.
>OrthoPANchromatic is an old term for what Kodak called Type-B panchromatic
>film, sensitive to all visible colors without excessive sensitivity to red.
>Nearly all current pan films fall into this catagory. Technical Pan is
>about the only exception; it has extended red sensitivity, both in
>bandwidth and amplitude.
>   If these films are actually orthochromatic they are the only normal
>contrast ortho films on the market.
>----

OrtoPANchromatic. They are less sensitive to red than ordinary panchromatic
films, and more sensitive to blue and green. But they are not red-blind!
Efke low speed films are great to use with lamps in the studio as no filters
are needed to compensate the yellow-red light.

Technical Pan is what is called "Ultra-Panfilm", at least in older german
books, as this film is more sensitive to red.

Macophot ORT25 is an ortho film that can be used for "everyday" photos if
it's developed in a low contrast developer like diluted Catechol developers,
in my case Mimosa No. 3. There's also Ilford Ortho.

/Patric

From: Struan Gray [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens testing realities - a bit shrill, but a good read.
Date: 20 Mar 2002

Robert Monaghan, [email protected] writes:
> actually, on my hasselblad backs, there are tiny "Vees"
> put there by hasselblad so art directors can tell by
> looking at the slides rim whether or not you were
> using a hasselblad back

    Bet you didn't know that Kodak made a black and white version
of Kodachrome 200, and in 120 format too.  Proof here:

  http://www.sljus.lu.se/People/Struan/pics/renbint.jpg

Struan
PS: more cheap eyepieces: Pentax Auto 110 lenses.

[Ed. note: Note Kodak SO-132 duplicating film is now an endangered film too ;-( ]
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: whither film? where polaroid goes...

I can see that freezer sales will be brisk over the next few years. I have
a two year stock of APX-25 (35mm & 120) and it might last much longer as I
have been using Efke 25 instead of APX-25 lately. Lovely film.

I even have a brick (no pun intended) of 120 Agfa Isopan IFF in my freezer.
Each film is contained in a screw top aluminum tube rather than that
dreadful plastic foil that takes two men and a small dog to tear off of the
film! Well, a brick -1 as I used a roll a couple of months ago. Still
perfect after 50 years in a freezer.

So if there ever is an announcement that Velvia, Provia 100F & 400F are
going to be discontinued, I guess I'll have to buy yet another freezer for
120, 220, and 4x5 Quickloads.

Color neg? ...nah

The same with Cibachrome (Ilfochrome.) I use this stuff like crazy and
would be lost without it. If it were going to go the way of the Dodo bird,
I truly would buy an enormous amount of 20x24 and 11x14 paper and freeze
it. And enough P3 chemistry to process it all. P3 chemistry has a
phenomenal shelf life. I would build a room and keep it at optimum
temperature for chemistry storage. Like wine...  :) 20x24 paper cuts easily
down to 16x20 & 8x10 sizes. 11x14 is wasteful. So I currently buy 20x24 and
11x14 sizes. This covers everything without waste without having a zillion
boxes of different sizes.

So, as long as we know in advance of a film's or paper's demise, we can
plan ahead. For instance, if you go to:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f11/f11.shtml

you will see that Kodak has announced the demise of SO-132 duplicating
film. If you are a heavy user of SO-132, now's the time to pack your "new"
film freezer.

Jim

 Robert Monaghan wrote:

>well, there sure are an awful lot of cameras you can't buy film for now,
>including zillions they just sold us a few years or decades ago. When
>polaroid stops making SX70 film, don't expect anyone to jump into this
>market either. If fuji drops out, that's it for polaroid film stocks right?
>
>Nobody is making slow 120 kodachromes either. Lots of film stocks have been
>dropped, including some favorite slow films in MF lately too. Most LF and
>many MF films are only done on a once a year production run now (not just
>IR stuff either). they are only economic because they already make the film
>stocks, and have the tooling, but when it wears out (as with 620 etc.)?
>
>Prof. film sales at kodak are only 5%, total consumer color slide and B&W
>films are only 1% of sales volume, versus 16% of medical/specialty films.
>How much of that 1% do you think was 120 film? Duh!? ;-) I'll bet kodak's
>ad budget for digital cameras is bigger than their sales from 120 films,
>not to mention tiny profits from 120 sales, if not a "loss leader" already?
>
>Maybe we will be able to buy 120 film from Croatia or Guangzhou, but it might
>not be color film or slide film, and if black and white will be 1950s
>technology (vs Tmax etc.). Then again, they may blow off the market as too
>costly to service for low volumes (cf glass quarter plates) ;-)
>
>could be worse; at least you can easily adapt a 'blad to a digital back ;-)

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Byron Rakitzis [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

>Which b&w films do you use?  What with Kodak playing games (discontinuing
>Verichrome and Plus-X Professional, substituting Professional Plus-X), I
>wonder what more experienced photographers are doing.

It looks grimmer than that on the Kodak web site: the replacement for
Plus-X is supposed to be Tmax 100. (!!!!)

I have a brick or so of VP in my film cupboard, but when it's gone I
guess that's it.

I've been using a lot of Ilford HP5 for everything these days, including
35mm. I suppose I'd like to continue supporting Ilford given that they
are a specialty player and if my support means anything it means more
to a company that makes nothing but film and paper.

But of the other doomed films (i.e., from the big-name manufacturers),
I like Agfa APX100, especially in 4x5.  But I can't see it lasting much
longer, either, given how Agfa has decimated its product line.

It's very encouraging to see Fuji Acros in sheet film as well as 120 and
35mm, but to get the sheet film you have to mail order it from England or
get it from Badger Graphic Sales. Still to see a new emulsion introduced
by Fuji is a very nice thing. I hope it means a lasting commitment to B&W.

Byron.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

you wrote:
>Which b&w films do you use?  What with Kodak playing games (discontinuing
>Verichrome and Plus-X Professional, substituting Professional Plus-X), I
>wonder what more experienced photographers are doing.
>
>I just came back from B&H.  Its even more confusing because they sell grey
>market, made in USA and sold in USA, made in USA for export and then
>imported.
>
>However, they're out of Verichrome.  There may never be another roll of
>unexposed Verichrome in North America.
>Dan Kalish [email protected]

 Here is the story. Kodak has discontinued Verichrome Pan. They have also
discontinued the very long toe version of Plus-X, which carried the codes
PXP and PXT.  This is the Plus-X which was available as sheet film.

 The normal toe version of Plus-X, which has been available as 35mm film
and 120 rolls, will continue to be made. This film carries the code PX and
will continue to carry it. Its available in 24 and 36 exposure cassettes,
100 foot long rolls, and in 120 and 220 roll film.  Kodak's notice says
that its B&W films are being made in a new factory and that the
characteristics may be slightly different than previous stock. There is
currently a new data sheet for the "new" Plus-X roll film available on the
Kodak web site as F-4018.

  I suspect this film is very similar to Verichrome Pan, at lease worth a
try for those who like V-Pan (like me).

  There are probably some other sheet film users here. There really is
nothing else quite like Plus-X sheet film, although Tri-X sheet is close.
The very long toe is IMHO not suitable for general use but is useful for
some special circumstances.

  T-Max 100 has a shorter toe and straighter mid curve area than Plus-X.
The difference in tonal rendition is likely subtle but some may like one
better than the other.

  Kodak has discontinued Verichrome Pan, Plus-X sheet, Ektapan (very
similar to Plus-X Pan sheet film).

  It would appear that they have taken the moving to a new facility as an
opportunity to discontinue low volume products.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic B&W 120 films

> Which b&w films do you use?  What with Kodak playing games ...

I'm using Agfapan APX 100 developed in classical recipes like ID11
1+1. And yes, I am conservative. The fact that Agfa has discontinued
Agfapan 25 has boosted independant European film manufacturers to
(re?-)introduce classical "low-tech" B&W films like Efke 25, rumored
to be not as good as APX 25. But as fas ar FTM is concerned, Kodak
T-max is supposed to be better than APX 25 !! a very controversial
subject... and also a good reason to discontinue low-tech films by
Agfa.

So in Europe (translate : in Germany ;-);-) the choice of B&W films is
comfortable: Ilford, Agfa, Kodak, Bergger (=Forte for some films),
Forte, Foma (Czech), Efke, Maco and Gigabit (135 and 4"x5", not in
120). So I'm not really anxious about B&W film vanishing in the next
few years.
--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

From: Mike Farrell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Fuji Film Names
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001

Transparency films:

RVP - Velvia 50 Professional
RTP - Fujichrome 64 Professional Tungsten
RA - Sensia II 100
RDP III - Provia 100F Professional
RM - Sensia II 200
RH - Sensia II 400
RHP - Provia 400F Professional (or is it RHP II?)
RSP - Provia 1600 Professional
CDU II - Duplicating Film Type II
Recently discontinued RMS - Multispeed 100/1000 Professional

Print films:
CS - Reala 100
CN - Super G 100
NPS - Professional 160
NPL - Professional 160 Tungsten
CA - Super G 200
NPH - Professional 400
CH - Super G 400
NHG II - Professional 800
CZ - Super G 800
CU - Super HG 1600

I don't know the code for Fujicolor Internegative Film.
--
Mike Farrell -- 

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polyester (was: Acetate film base)

I'd like to add something to this. Acetate film base will change
dimensions when wet and died. Polyestar base film is stable
as far as dimensions are concerned. This makes it desireable
when physical stablity is needed, such as when making color
separations or measurement tasks. Estar is Kodak's name for
Mylar (polyestar). The 72 exposure Ilford film attempt some
years back made use of Polyestar thin-base to get the 72 exposure
roll into a standard 35mm magazine. It died. Ed

Bob Shell wrote:
>  J Patric DahlTn at [email protected] wrote:
>
> > It's said that Polyester as film base is more stable than acetate. Is this
> > really true, and why aren't PE used with more conventional films than Tech
> > Pan and such? Sheet film have polyester base, and some odd 135-films, but no
> > 120-films. Why?
>
> Polyester film base is very tough.  Basically it's Mylar.  Cutting films on
> this base can be a hassle, and you can forget trying to tear it.  Personally
> I'm glad most films are not on polyester base.
>
> Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Polyester (was: Acetate film base)

...(quoting above query)

 I'm not sure why this is. Polyester supports are used on some motion
picture films and on sheet films. This is the stuff Kodak calls Estar and
DuPont calls Mylar. Its very dimentionally stable and is supposed to be
very chemically stable.

  The acetate base used on current roll films is a much more stable form
than the tri-acetate which has caused the vinegar syndrome trouble. Early
acetate was a di-acetate, which has turned out to be more stable than the
later tri-acetate, which was _supposed_ to be better.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Scott)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again
Date: 27 Mar 2002

I think, at best, you can say their renewed commitment to sheet film
is ambiguous. What information Kodak is providing today could
certainly lead someone to certain negative, if possibly incorrect,
conclusions.

Its true - they are *not* wholesale discontinuing Plus-X - they are
replacing it with what appears to be a similar film coded 125PX... but
read the data sheet for this film carefully and you'll see that its
not available in sheet sizes.

Its also true that they are replacing the Tri-X Pan 400 and Tri-X Pan
Professional 320 with new emulsions. The datasheets for these films
are not yet available on the Kodak site, so its not clear whether they
will provide them in sheet film sizes.

Clearly they are not *discontinuing* Tri-X Pan 400... but then, that
point is kind of irrelevant to the sheet film user as that Tri-X Pan
400 isn't currently available in sheets anyway.

The information on TMAX is a little better as at least the literature
on their site still references sheet film sizes.

Is this cause for concern? Yes... wholesale chicken little type panic?
No.

It would be nice if someone from Kodak or someone with better
connections there than I could clear up some of these apparent
ambiguities.

- Scott

John [email protected] wrote 
>  "sweep" [email protected]
> wrote:
>
> >It looks like Kodak is killing Plus-X period. Tri-X 400 is being replaced
> >by Tri-X 320 and the Tmax films are being changed somewhat since they will
> >have new developing times. I noticed that some other
> >older films are getting the ax also.
> >
> >I just came from the Kodak web site. looking for tech info, and saw the
> >notices.
> >
> >Ira
>
>       No they aren't. The whole deal is that they are moving the
> film production to a new building. This mandates that the films
> be completely re-evaluated. I checked with ProProducts about this
> the other day and they are NOT discontinuing any B&W films other
> than Verichrome Pan and Ektapan .
>
>       In point of fact they just recently renewed their
> commitment to B-&-W films as they are moving the production into
> a new facility. read the story at ;
>
>
> http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/pressReleases/pr20020224-01.shtml
>
> Regards
>
>    John S. Douglas, Photographer
>      http://www.darkroompro.net

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
From: Andrew Koenig [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again

sweep> The Plus -X page on the Kodak website that I visited had the following note
sweep> attached to it.

sweep> "Notice of discontinuence. Kodak Plus-X and Plus-X Pan Professional films
sweep> will be discontinued in October, 2002 when stocks are expected to be
sweep> depleted. As a recomended alternative, we suggest Kodak Professional
sweep> T-Max/100TMX."

sweep> If I mis-understand the above notice, my apology to everyone.

On the other hand, look at

http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=&cc=US&lc=en&product=KODAK+PR
OFESSIONAL+PLUS-X+125+Film+/+125PX

in which you will find this:

   KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film / 125PX

                     --Notice--
     Replaces KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films.

   Modernized film with characteristics similar to PLUS X Pan and Pan
   Professional Films except slightly different developing time.

So perhaps there is a communication problem...

--
Andrew Koenig, [email protected], http://www.research.att.com/info/ark

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Plus-X or not Plus-X, that is the question
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002

"Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected] wrote:

>Silly us.  Getting confused between "Plus-X Professional"
>and "Professional Plus-X", not to mention "Plus-X".
>
>The same only different.  Or they were different and now they
>are all the same...  Or for a short period of time there will
>be three different Plus-X's on the market and then there will
>be only one (or none), which will be the same....
>
>I can just envision the marketing dweebs coming up with
>this solution - designed, I am sure, to minimize customer
>confusion and keep the brand name intact.
>
>OTOH, they are getting a lot of freebie name placement out
>of this snafu.  Hey, maybe the guy who thought up 'New Coke'
>works for Kodak now.
>
>
>The only one getting screwed here is Kodak.
>
>--
>Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio [email protected]
>Consulting Engineer:  Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
>

  I've never understood why Kodak decided to use virtually identical
names for very different products. There are two completely different
emulsions being sold under the general names of Plus-X and Tri-X. One
is a normal, medium-toe film, the other is a special very long toe
film intended for mainly studio product photography. The medium toe
version of both films is available as roll film and 35mm film, the
long toe version as sheet film. The tonal rendition of the two types
is substantially different. Kodak made a third film (now discontinued)
called Ektapan, with virtually the same sensitometric characteristics
as long toe Plus-X but of ISO-100 speed rather than ISO-125. Why
couldn't Plus-X have been called something else? Don't know.

  It appears from data sheets of sixty years ago that even then sheet
films and roll films sold under the same name had different
sensitometric characteristics. Not as extreme as the difference
between modern Plus-X roll and Plus-X sheet, but different
nonetheless.

  In any case, Plus-X in 35mm and roll film is being continued and is
very good general purpose film, especially for those who don't get
along with T-Max too well. Plus-X roll film looks enough like
Verichrome Pan to be a satisfactory replacement. In any case, closer
than FP-4 or Agfapan 100, both of which are are also good film.

  Kodak management is stuck with trying to maintain a reasonably
competitive return on investment for its stockholders, not easy and a
legal obligation, without dismembering the company. I don't envy them.

  Both Henry Ford II and William Paley (founder of CBS) said at
various times that thier greatest mistake was taking their companies
public. Once you do that the performance of the stock becomes
paramount and return must be maintained even if it winds up killing
off the company. There have been major law suits by stockholders which
establish this obligation as the highest management has. I don't want
to start a political discussion but think that this policy winds up
doing damage to the over all economy and needs some modification.

  In any case, Kodak's management is walking a high-wire and doing the
best it can in a changing marketplace.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Kodak Screws Us Again
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002

"sweep" [email protected] wrote:
>It looks like Kodak is killing Plus-X period. Tri-X 400 is being replaced
>by Tri-X 320 and the Tmax films are being changed somewhat since they will
>have new developing times. I noticed that some other
>older films are getting the ax also.
>
>I just came from the Kodak web site. looking for tech info, and saw the
>notices.
>
>Ira

 I just checked the Kodak site. There is NO notice of either form of
Tri-X being dicontniued.

 Discontinued films are:

Plus-X Pan Professional, long toe film in sheet and roll sizes. Plus-X
Pan medium toe film in 35mm and roll sizes will continue to be made.

 Ektapan is being discontinued.

 Kodak High Speed Infrared film in sheet sizes and roll film is being
discontinued, 35mm film will continue to be made.

 Verichrome Pan is being discontinued. (Plus-X roll film is similar
and may be satisfactory to V-Pan users).

  Some specialty films have been discontinued.

  Plus-X sheet film must have had a very small market share. It was
really a special purpose film with a very up-swept curve. This sort of
characteristic is desirable for some types of photography but not for
most general purpose work. Tri-X 320 has a similar curve, although not
as extreme. Ektapan was similar to Plus-X sheet film but with ISO-100
speed to make it compatible with color film on the same shoots. It
probably has a very small market.

  Film is made using production line methods. Obviously, Kodak's
production facilities were both old and built for larger capacity than
is being used now. That means machinery standing idle, very
undesirable. Also, film is perishable. In fact, it may be more
perishable now than in the recent past because of restrictions on some
ingredients for environmental protection purposes. This means that its
very uneconomical to make film which is not going to be sold within
some specified time. Otherwise it just gets dumped. The market must be
both large enough and steady enough to justify making the product.
While some companies can make once-a-year special runs, such as
Konica's IR film, this is in general not a very economical way to run
a factory. Konica usually sells its film out in a short time. Kodak is
set up for mass producing films with steady sales, even to some
special purpose films.

  These are just business facts of life. Many applications of chemical
photography are now done electronically. I don't think electronic (or
digital) photography will ever completely replace chemical photogrphy
but the fact is that its already cut into it substantially and has
virtually supplanted it in certain areas such as photomechanical
reproduction.

  Kodak isn't screwing us, they are trying not to kill off chemical
photography products while not dying themselves.

  The fact is that they chose to build a more efficient plant for
these products rather than killing them off altogether. The new plant
and machinery suggests they do have a long term commitment to B&W as
well as color chemical photography. I think they should be lauded for
this rather than bashed.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: steve - film sales stats, up or down??  Re: Kodak Screws Us Again
Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002

.....

 For what its worth here is a listing of standard type films
available from Kodak c.1945. These are films for still cameras and
doesn't include special purpose films or motion picture films.

  Note that this is black and white. There is no question that there
are more color films available now than in the past.

Kodak Films c.194
 Rolls and Film packs
Verichrome
Plus-X
Super-XX
Super Ortho Press Packs

35mm and Bantam
Plus-X
Panatomic-X
Super-XX
Infrared
Direct Positive Panchromatic
Positive High Contrast film
Micro-File

Sheet Films
Super Panchro Press Sports Type
Tri-X
Super Panchro Press Type-B
Super-XX
Portrait Panchromatic
Panatomic-X
Ortho-X
Super Ortho-Press
Super Speed Ortho Portrait
Infrared
Commercial
Contrast Process

 A number of the sheet film emulsions were also offered as glass
plates.

Ansco offered a similar selection of films and plates. There were also
a smaller, but still substantial, selection of sheet films and plates
from Defender. DuPont offered three speeds of 35mm negative film under
the name Superior, microfilm, infrared and positive films. Mostly
DuPont catered to the motion picture industry.

 OTOH, the only real color films available were Kodachrome and
Kodacolor. There were some additive screen type plates and films
available, such as Dufycolor, but they were inferior to the Kodak
products. Agfa never introduced its color film to the US. Ansco's
early color film was essentially the late 1930's Agfa stuff. Kodak
introduced Ektachrome and Ektacolor in the late 1940's and
discontinued Kodachrome in large sizes at the same time. None of the
early intregal coupler films was very good although Kodak's were
better than Ansco's. Kodachrome continued to be the film of choice for
professional work until it was no longer available.

  I suspect that many of the B&W films available would not be
acceptable today. The faster ones were pretty grainy and some had
pretty definite shoulders, making for blocked highlights.

 From the published curves the 35mm, roll film, and sheet film
emulsions from Kodak bearing the same names were not the identical
emulsions. The famous Super-XX with very straight line characteristic
was the sheet film stuff. Roll and 35mm film was something else
although it had the same speed. The same for Plus-X.

 Obviously many of these films were continued because there was a
large enough market for them despite probably being obsolete at the
time.

 Around 1958 (not sure of the date without doing some searching) Kodak
made a lot of changes in its emulsions and coating. This is when they
introduced Verichrome Pan. I think they went to thinner coatings for
many films. Certainly the sharpness of the films was improved.

  I am speaking from experience here. Kodak adjusted its resolution
numbers upward in the late 1940s or early 1950s because they discoved
an error in the measurements. Namely, the lens used for exposing the
film had aberrations which were previously unsuspected. A new and very
much better lens was designed and built and about doubled the
resolution numbers for many of the films. The change in emulsion was
something else. Kodak also introduced new versions of their color
films at about the same time.

  Kodak's current black and white line seems to rely on T-Max and
Tri-X for sheet films and T-Max, Plus-X, Tri-X and Technical Pan for
roll and 35mm sizes.

  Ilford and Agfa also have few films in their repertory,
concentrating on those with continuing fairly high volume sales.

 My guess is that Kodak makes their color films in another factory
which is newer and more efficient than the one which has been used for
B&W up until now, so there will not be mass layoffs of color films.

  In the past Kodak has discontinued film simply because they were
inferior to a later product. This may also be part of what is
happening now.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Verichrome Pan

you wrote:
>Is Verichrome Pan gone?  I tried to find some yesterday, and it is being
>hoarded by someone.

  Kodak announced a short time ago that V-Pan was being discontinued. When
current stocks are exhausted it will be gone.

  Plus-X roll film is similar, although not the same emulsion. It may be
close enough to be satisfactory.

  Note that Plus-X sheet film has a completely different emulsion with
different tonal rendition. If you have used it you will find the roll
version looks quite different. The curves for the _roll_ version are quite
similar to Verichrome Pan.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

No, ALL Plus-X films. See Kodak's inormation:

"KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films will be discontinued in
October, 2002 when stocks are expected to be depleted. As a recommended
alternative, we suggest KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 Film / 100TMX. For
technical information, see KODAK Publication F-4016, KODAK PROFESSIONAL
T-MAX Films."

/Patric

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 
From: Philippe Tempel [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

I gather you're not a big fan of TMX or TMY, eh?  I
can't say boo about them since I've never used either
film.  Chris Johnson who wrote "The Practical Zone
System" book (I highly recommend it, BTW) talks about
TMX and T-Max developer being a good combination for
fine grain, shadow detail and contrast.  The only
caveat he mentions about T-Max developer is that you
can't use it with TMX sheet film.  It will fog the
film, so Kodak came out with T-Max RS developer for
that.  Has anyone used TMX and is happy with it?
What's your preferred soup with it?

[Ed. note: the key point here is how Kodak's miscommunications leave us wondering what's going on...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

This is just not correct.  Plus-X films will continue in production in 35mm,
120, and some sheet film sizes.  I will happily send you the latest
information on Kodak black and white films as PDF files which I just got
from Kodak. They just built a new manufacturing plant for black and white
films, and Plus-X continues in the line.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

Here's Kodak's latest black and white press release in toto:

February 24, 2002

Kodak Investment in State-of-the-Art Film Manufacturing Facility
Improves, Extends Venerable Kodak Professional Black-and-White Films
21st Century T-Max, Plus-X, Tri-X Films Shoot the Same, Minimize Problems
With Dust

Kodak Professional today ensured quality black-and-white photography well
into the 21st century by announcing that its T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X films
are now being produced in a state-of-the-art facility utilizing modern
manufacturing and emulsion processes that maintain the familiar, fundamental
characteristics of the films while improving the physical characteristics of
the negative.

      Kodakfs venerable professional black-and-white films are being
produced at Kodakfs most technically advanced manufacturing facility in
Rochester.  The modern processes in use also improve the film negative so it
is cleaner and much less susceptible to attracting dust.  The only
difference photographers are likely to encounter is a slight adjustment in
development times.

    "These next-generation black-and-white films from Kodak shoot the same
as before and maintain the high quality our customers have come to expect,"
said Bob Shanebrook, Worldwide Product Line Manager, Negative Films, Kodak
Professional.  "Photographers might see minor differences in development
times, but they'll enjoy the same exceptional results in their prints in
2002 and for years to come.  This investment is solid proof of Kodakfs
long-term commitment to quality black-and-white photography."

    Kodak Professional T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X films from the new facility
are clearly identified through new packaging, a new catalog number and new
notch sheet codes.  This new packaging adopts the naming conventions of
Kodak Professional color negative and the latest reversal films, listing the
filmfs speed followed by a description (e.g., 125 PX film).

    T-Max and Plus-X films will be shipped to dealers in April, while Tri-X
film will be shipped in October.  All three films will be available from
dealers on a stock-turnover basis.  The original T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X
films will stop shipping to dealers in March.

    The new films will be priced similar to the black-and-white films they
replace.  Introduction of the films coincides with Kodakfs worldwide
film-price adjustments that occurred January 1 in the U.S. and February 1 in
Europe.

    Kodak Professional T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X black-and-white films are
available from authorized dealers of Kodak Professional products, and
directly from Kodak Professional via the Kodak web site.
#

Editorfs Note:  For information about Kodak Professional and its
photographic films, customers may call:  1-800-235-6325, or visit our web
site at:  www.kodak.com/go/professional.

(Note:  Kodak, Kodak Professional, T-Max, Plus-X and Tri-X are trademarks of
Eastman Kodak Company.)

2002
Improved Kodak Professional Black-and-White Films / page   PAGE  2

KODAK PROFESSIONAL ( EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY ( 343 STATE STREET ( ROCHESTER,
N.Y.  14650-0412

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002
From: Byron Rakitzis [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

>No, ALL Plus-X films. See Kodak's inormation:

>"KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films will be discontinued in
>October, 2002 when stocks are expected to be depleted. As a recommended
>alternative, we suggest KODAK PROFESSIONAL T-MAX 100 Film / 100TMX. For
>technical information, see KODAK Publication F-4016, KODAK PROFESSIONAL
>T-MAX Films."

That comment notwithstanding, there is going to be a newly-formulated
Plus-X in 35mm and 120. Check out this:

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018.jhtml

  KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film is a medium-speed,
      continuous-tone panchromatic film that is a good choice for
      general-purpose outdoor or studio photography. It features extremely
      fine grain and excellent sharpness.

      KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X Film is available in 135 size and 35 mm
      long rolls on a 5-mil gray acetate base, and in 120 and 220 size
      on a 3.6-mil acetate base. The 120 and 220 sizes have a retouching
      surface on the emulsion side.

Notice the new name "Professional Plus-X 125" and the new film code: 125PX.

Also, you can look at Publication F-33, which describes the changeover
a little more, and which has photos of the new film boxes for Tmax, Tri-X
and Plus-X:

http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f33/f33.jht
ml

Some clips:

>Kodak Professional Plus-X 125 film / 125PX
>
>      --Notice: Replaces Kodak Plus-X pan and Plus-X pan professional
>                                        films on a stock-turnover basis.-- >

and

>      Kodak Plus-X pan film / PX
>      Kodak Plus-X pan professional film / PXP, PXT
>
>      --Notice: Will be replaced by Kodak Professional Plus-X film /
>      125PX on a stock turnover basis in 2002. Sheet sizes (PXT) will
>      be discontinued. Recommended alternative is Kodak Professional
>      T-Max 100 film.--

Byron.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

I believe Bob Shell is correct.  Kodak posted the following on March 13th:
http://www.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/f4018/f4018
.jhtml

Note that this is the *NEW* data sheet for Plus-X, F-4018, and it does NOT
have the discontinuance notice.  The link you posted is the *OLD* data
sheet for Plus-X, F-8.  This is consistent with what Bob Shell posted
earlier from Kodak about the new production plant.  It would make sense
that Kodak would create the new data sheet prior to updating the old one
with the discontinuance notice.  I believe that discontinuance notice
you're reading *only* refers to the Plus-X being made using the old
manufacturing methods.

-- John

From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is the likely de-volution of film due to digital
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002

Alan Browne [email protected] wrote:
> I believe that was implied in the original post.
> Can you dig a bit deeper:  Which particular films...

As usual my thoughts are headed in a different direction than
everybody else...

It is a bit hard to predict what's going to happen with which films
because of the irrationality of Kodak.  They discontinue some of
their best products (Ektar 25, PRN, Kodachrome 25, Royal Gold 100)
and introduce other products with questionable application and/or
implementation (B+W 400, Portra 160VC and 400VC, Max 400).  Good
technology remains, as in products like Supra 400/800.

On the other hand, Fujifilm has introduced a number of intriguing
products of late.  NPC kind of replaces PRN, Provia 400F finally
brings 400 to slide films, and Superia Reala approaches Ektar 25
in resolution and exceeds it in grain.  With the Vista line, Agfa
has really set a new standard for portrait films.

Although we have heard about many discontinued products, I believe
the current selection exceeds that of 10 years ago in variety.

So what will happen?  I think we'll eventually see the disappearance
of orange-mask print film.  Slide film emulsions will be introduced
to optimize scanning and digital printing.  Really all that's needed
are portrait and commercial/landscape/sport films, with high and low
contrast variants.  Saturation can be tweaked digitally, so films
just need wide-spectrum color accuracy and fidelity of detail.

From: Dominic-Luc Webb molmed 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Polaroid 35mm Instant Slide Film
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2002

 DM wrote:

   > I know that this isn't really the newsgroup for this query, but since a
lot
   > of Pros hang out here, I thought I'd ask it anyway. I hope you don't mind.

I am getting in on this discussion rather late, but here goes...

Polaroid instant 35 mm slide, both color and B&W are alive and well.
Even the Polaroid dealers here in Sweden refuse to sell it. No
wonder Polaroid shares have performed so poorly. This is a decent
product with very poor distribution. The grain size is very small,
like under 10 microns, and by my own measurements, usually smaller
than 5. The developer is straightforward to use, but you need to
be careful about your camera to make sure the film doesn't get
wound all the way into the case because you need a little bit
of film sticking out to load the autodeveloper. Yes, I recommend
this film. I use it for making Ronchi gratings for making my own
optics and this works at least as well, if not better than, the
expensive glass ones sold by optics suppliers. Sources can be
found in Shutterbug magazine. The cost is about 12 USD for a
roll of 12 exposures, which includes the developer cartridge. If
you don't have a machine, you can put the developer and film
against each other in a darkroom for the time indicated on the
box.

   > Is it easy to use?
Yes, easy.

Cheers,
Dominic

Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 
From: martin tai [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke in the U.S.

--- J Patric DahlTn [email protected] wrote:
> If Efke films are hard to find, it can be good to
> know that they also are
> sold as Macophot UP 25c and UP 64c. I think
> www.onecachet.com sells Maco
> films. Efke R100 in 127-film is sold by B&H as Maco
> UP100
>
> /Patric

http://www.freestylesalesco.com/ sell  Efke film

martin

Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: OT: Anyone have experience with Agfa Scala in 120?

 you wrote:
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>> Most 35mm B&W
>> negative film is coated on a support with an anti-light-piping pigment
>> included
>
>Richard -
>
>What does this do?
>Eric Goldstein

 Its there mainly because one end of 35mm film is often exposed to the
light. The support material can conduct the light longitudinally fogging
nearby film. It also acts as an additional anti-halation layer.

  The pigment is used mainly in B&W negative films. Color film usually has
an anti-halation coating just under the emulsion which acts to prevent both
halation and light-piping. I don't know why it isn't used on B&W film.

  The anti-halation coating on most B&W film is really a dye which is
included in the anti-curl gelatin back coating. It isn't removed in
processing but, rather, decolored by the developer.

  Anti-light-piping pigment, AFAIK is used only in the support for 35mm B&W
film for still cameras.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective re Velvia

I would agree with Bob on this about ISO settings and Velvia.  There's an
interesting analysis of this here:

http://www.peternorquist.com/technotes/meter_calibration.html

R.J.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Incident v. reflective

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
> Sorry Bob but I disagree. Fuji has always calimed ISO50 but the film
> underexposes
> terribly at this setting.
> When I set my camera it shows ISO40 on the display. You may refer to it as EI,
> but for simplicity sake I avoide semantics and opted to use what is show on
> the
> display atop my camera.  Call it what you like but the point is at ISO50
> Velvia underexposes, the same with other ISO50 films do not, so this is
> why I say it is not a "true" ISO50 film. While you may think
> otherwise, ISO32 is my setting of choice for this film.

The problem is that ISO speeds are determined in the lab using very strict
protocols established by the ISO.  They don't always transfer to real world
shooting, but that's not Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, etc.'s fault.  Most of us have
personal EI speeds we use for certain films to get the results we want.
That doesn't change the laboratory established ISO one whit, though.  I'm
not quibbling over semantics but suggesting technical accuracy when
discussing technical subjects.

BTW, I personally expose Velvia at EI 50 because with my cameras, meter, and
personal preferences that works best.  I tell my students to do a set of
bracketed tests with any film that is new to them and use the EI that
produces the results they want.

Bob

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic B&W 120 films

> Which b&w films do you use?  What with Kodak playing games ...

I'm using Agfapan APX 100 developed in classical recipes like ID11
1+1. And yes, I am conservative. The fact that Agfa has discontinued
Agfapan 25 has boosted independant European film manufacturers to
(re?-)introduce classical "low-tech" B&W films like Efke 25, rumored
to be not as good as APX 25. But as fas ar FTM is concerned, Kodak
T-max is supposed to be better than APX 25 !! a very controversial
subject... and also a good reason to discontinue low-tech films by
Agfa.

So in Europe (translate : in Germany ;-);-) the choice of B&W films is
comfortable: Ilford, Agfa, Kodak, Bergger (=Forte for some films),
Forte, Foma (Czech), Efke, Maco and Gigabit (135 and 4"x5", not in
120). So I'm not really anxious about B&W film vanishing in the next
few years.

--
Emmanuel BIGLER
[email protected]

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

Richard Knoppow at [email protected] wrote:

> Kodak has discontinued Verichrome Pan, Plus-X sheet, Ektapan (very
> similar to Plus-X Pan sheet film).
> It would appear that they have taken the moving to a new facility as an
> opportunity to discontinue low volume products.

At PMA I had a long chat with Bob Shanebrook, one of the few old-timers left
at Kodak.  Bob is in charge of professional films these days.  We discussed
the changes in their black and white line.

One of the things they have done is to make the surface coating of all films
consistent, which was not the case in the past.  The new films will come in
completely new packaging so you can easily distinguish them from the old
ones.  You may have to change processing times on the new films, so testing
is advised.

It is possible, although this is a personal speculation and nothing Bob
said, that some films are being discontinued because they were incompatible
with the new surface coating for which the new coating lines were designed.

Bob

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

...(quote above posting)

 Have you any more detailed idea of what the "surface coating" is all
about? Virtually all films and papers have a final coating of gelatin as an
anti-abrasion coating. It is also reported that Kodak uses different
thicknesses of anti-abrasion coating on T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 to make
development times nearly identical for them. I no longer remember where I
read this and don't know if its true.

  Kodak mentions something about anti-static and other desirable qualities
in the new versions of these films suggesting at least some change in
over-coating, or, perhaps, some new over-coating in addition to the gelatin.

  The new packaging for Plus-X is illustrated in color on the PDF data
sheet I mentioned.

  I suspect that Kodak would have gone through some trouble to maintain
films which sold well enough. Kodak has been very strong in their recent
statements vowing to continue film, and especially, B&W film.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

from rollei mailing list:

Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

 Richard Knoppow at [email protected] wrote:

> Have you any more detailed idea of what the "surface coating" is all
> about? Virtually all films and papers have a final coating of gelatin as an
> anti-abrasion coating. It is also reported that Kodak uses different
> thicknesses of anti-abrasion coating on T-Max 100 and T-Max 400 to make
> development times nearly identical for them. I no longer remember where I
> read this and don't know if its true.

I don't have any more info yet.  I was promised film samples and more
detailed information, and will expect that in the near future.  Apparently
they have simplified their emulsion coating process by using the same
final coating on all of them, which may cause some changes in developing
times for some films, processed some times, in some developers.

> Kodak mentions something about anti-static and other desirable qualities
> in the new versions of these films suggesting at least some change in
> over-coating, or, perhaps, some new over-coating in addition to the gelatin.
> The new packaging for Plus-X is illustrated in color on the PDF data
> sheet I mentioned.

I don't know if this is something in addition to the usual gelatin top coat.
Specific details like this were not supplied and specific questions were not
answered in detail.  Also, I should add that my meeting on this was
peripheral since I was not covering film for anyone this year and when I
sat down with Bob I made it clear this was just for my own personal
information, and not for any specific publication.  My reason for visiting
the folks at Kodak was to see the new DCS 645 Pro Back.

> I suspect that Kodak would have gone through some trouble to maintain
> films which sold well enough. Kodak has been very strong in their recent
> statements vowing to continue film, and especially, B&W film.

More power to them!  In an industry which is increasingly pronouncing that
film is dead it is nice to hear a counterpoint.  At least one camera company
has said they don't expect to produce any more new film cameras, and the
rest of the companies are very nervous about the future of film cameras.

I wish I knew where this industry will be in five years.

Bob

From rollei mailing list:
from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

 Byron Rakitzis at [email protected] wrote:
> But of the other doomed films (i.e., from the big-name manufacturers),
> I like Agfa APX100, especially in 4x5.  But I can't see it lasting much
> longer, either, given how Agfa has decimated its product line.

Agfa has completely dropped out of digital to concentrate on their core
business of film and paper.  To me this makes it likely that they will work
hard now not to discontinue any more of their products.  The company is for
sale, though, and the last buyers deal fell apart literally at the last
minute.  Most of their future will depend on who ends up buying them.  There
is a strong rumor in the industry that they might themselves be buying
Polaroid so there would be a more attractive package to sell.  But that
is just a rumor so far as I know.  It will be interesting to see what the
future holds for them.

Bob

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Off-Topic : Bergger 200 film

>From: [email protected]

> > RUGers I just read about a film named Bergger 200. Claimed to be
> > like an old favorite of mine; Super XX. Where can I obtain any of
> > that?
>
>Rumored to be identical to Fortepan 200. Bergger products are
>available at certain retail stores in France but Bergger has a
>distributor in the US. So you can certainly mail order those films.
>
>Well, in fact I believed in the Forte rumor ;-);-) and I just bought
>10 rolls of Fortepan 200 from foto-brenner, germany by mail order.

Bergger 200 = Forte 200 = Efke 100 Made by Fotokemika in Croatia, Efke that
is.

/Patric

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Isopan F

you wrote:
>>From: Robert Marvin - Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>>>I also really liked Agfa Isopan F.  Do any of you know if
>>>any equivalent of that is made?
>>
>>--
>>Try Efke R25. Its the same as the old Adox R14 which is a
>>contemporary of Agfa Isopan F.
>
>
>Another vote for Efke films. R50 is a good choise too. However, the Efke low
>speed films are ortopanchromatic.
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>/Patric

  Orthopanchromatic or Orthochromatic? Two different things orthochromatic
means sensitive to blue and green but not sensitive to red.

OrthoPANchromatic is an old term for what Kodak called Type-B panchromatic
film, sensitive to all visible colors without excessive sensitivity to red.
Nearly all current pan films fall into this catagory. Technical Pan is
about the only exception; it has extended red sensitivity, both in
bandwidth and amplitude.

  If these films are actually orthochromatic they are the only normal
contrast ortho films on the market.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] B&W films

 you wrote:
>Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>>   Here is the story. [...]
>> [...]
>>   It would appear that they have taken the moving to a new facility as an
>> opportunity to discontinue low volume products.
>
>Here's a bit more of the story.
>
>"Kodak planning push on b&w film market
>
>Kodak will deliver significant improvements to the quality of its b&w
>film in a move that it says demonstrates its commitment to continued
>development in the market."

  I think this is a bit of gloss to cover up the fact that they are
discontinuing product and probably reducing manufacturing capacity. At
least they are staying in the business.

  Another aspect is that if the present users of chemical photography
should be driven to electronic photography by lack of materials they would
not necessarily (or even probably) remain customers of Kodak.

  The on-goin change from one technology to another here is not quite like
any similar change in the past. Its moved pretty fast and affects _very_
large companies, who have had a rather stable market for over a century.

  The new technology is also not incompatible with the old and is not
necessarily superior to it in all ways, so there is a strong possibility
(say I) that digital will not supplant chemical.

  An example of a new technology which supplanted an old one because the
two were not compatible was the change from steam engine locomotives to
Diesel-electric on U.S. railways. Once railroads started changing to Diesel
about 1950 the change was very rapid and no steam locomotives were to be
found in mainline service within ten years. The reason? Steam, especially
coal burning locomotives, require a lot of trackside support not needed by
Diesel, plus maintenance is completely different for the two types, and
Diesels eliminated certain kinds of track damage inherent in steam locos.
So, if the economic benefits of Diesel were to be fully gained steam had to
go completely. The first US steam locomotive was built in 1839 (Baldwin)
and the last for domestic use, in 1949 (by Baldwin). By about 1960 there
was not a steamer to be found in service on a major railroad. (I think the
Norfolk and Western, who built their own locos, may have operated coal
fired steam after this date.)

  I hope this is not the pattern for chemical photography.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

[Ed. note: attention fellow fuji film fans...]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Exposure Indexes, First Developers, and dark slides

Paul Kollas at [email protected] wrote:
> This brings up another factor:  JOBO Fototechnic, both in their E-6 Handbook
> and in their instruction sheet accompanying their Tetenal E-6 3-Bath Plus,
> recommend either increasing the first developer time, or increasing exposure
> time by 1/3, for Fuji films (E-6). I have found this recommendation to be
> valid. I asked a friend who has a commercial film processing store if he
> made separate runs for Fuji film, and he said 'no'. As it happens, he is the
> very person who originally pointed out the JOBO recommmendation to me. So I
> am left to puzzle over how widespread is this conundrum?

Fuji E-6 films are incompatible with others, particularly Kodak, and must
not be run in the same batch in dip-n-dunk processors.  If processed
alongside Kodak the Fuji will come out with density and color shifts.
My lab knows this, and never runs the two together, and always runs the
Fuji first thing in the day after the regular daily replenishment of the
chemicals.  The lab owner has tested Agfa, Ferrania, Konica, E-6 films
and all "get along" fine with Kodak.  It is only Fuji that doesn't.

Bob

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] EI & ISO

Rick Huber at [email protected] wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> What is the best procedure to test the above? I understand the
> difference between the two (EI and ISO), but have never heard of a method
> of determining a personal EI for color or using EI for development times in
> B&W.
>
> Thanks!
> Rick
>
> PS. Sorry for asking another freakin' question!  :)

With slide film you just shoot a roll, bracketing each shot around the
official ISO and keeping notes.  Get the film back uncut so you can tell
what order the frames are in and look at them on a pro lightbox.

With black and white it is more complex, but if you shoot a bracketed
test roll as above and process at the manufacturer's specified time and
temperature you will be able to establish a basic EI for any given film.
There are complex ways to do this with densitometers and graphs, and
simpler ways by just picking the negative which prints best.

Bob

From Leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: color film recommendations

If you want blue and red, you want Kodak.

If you want green, you want Fuji.

If you want G-R-E-E-N, you want Fuji Velvia and a polarizer. It will knock
you socks off!

Jim

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 
From: David Seifert [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Skandanavia

Geir,

Are you sure you want to get involved with 126 film?  To my knowledge there
is only one maker of the film at the moment, Ferrania, who makes only a
single emulsion, a ISO 200 color print film. That is not much choice. While
the film is probably fine the problem of film flatness remains.  There is
no pressure plate in a 126 system and film flatness has always plagued the
system.  If you are intent on getting into this format the Rollei SL26 or
Kodak Instamatic Reflex are the ones to get.  For finding lenses the Kodak
may have the edge since all the later Retina Reflex Schneider lenses fit
the camera.  These lenses were very good and are available on eBay at very
attractive prices.  The Rollei SL26 lenses are not truly
interchangeable.  They use a front component interchange system very much
like the Zeiss-Ikon Contaflex system.  In fact it looks very like they may
be the same lens sets in a different mount.  Finding these are going to be
more challenging due to much smaller production runs.

Hope this helps.

Best Regards,
David Seifert
...

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

you wrote:
>
>>From: Bob Shell Yes, I am correct, and Plus-X has not been discontinued.
>
>
>Phew, I think you're right. The recommendation for T-Max instead of the new
>Plus-X must be a misprint.
>
>This can be read on another page:
>
>KODAK PROFESSIONAL PLUS-X 125 Film / 125PX
>--Notice--
>Replaces KODAK PLUS-X Pan and PLUS-X Pan Professional Films.
>
>http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/webCatalog.pl?section=&cc=US&lc=en&product=KOD
AK+PROFESSIONAL+PLUS-X+125+Film+/+125PX
>
>/Patric

 Its not a misprint. T-Max 100 SHEET FILM is the closest KODAK film to
Plus-X Pan SHEET FILM. Its about the same speed. Otherwise its not very
much like Plus-X. T-Max is a fairly short toe film with a very long
straight line portion. Plus-X Pan Sheet Film is almost all toe, that is,
the contrast rises continuously with density all through the curve. The
result is a depression of mid gray tones when the same highlight and shadow
densities are chosen for printing. Plus-X Pan sheet film was designed to
exagerate highlight brightness in certain kinds of studio pictures. T-Max
is a better gereral use film but can't duplicate the peculiar look of Plus-X.

 Tri-X Pan Professional sheet film, the ISO-320 stuff, is much closer in
characteristic to Plus-X pan sheet film. It was designed to have the same
sort of characteristic, but is not as extreme. Ektapan, also discontinued,
also has a similar long toe characteristic.

  Tri-X 35mm and roll film, ISO-400, is, like its Plus-X counterpart, a
completely different emulsion from Tri-X sheet film. Again like Plus-X 35mm
and roll film, its a medium toe, general purpose film with good latitude.

  Plus-X in roll film and 35mm film is a completely different emulsion. It
is a medium toe general purpose film with very good latitude. Its similar
to the late, lamented Verichrome Pan in this respect.

  Plus-X 35mm and roll film has been renamed because there will be some
differenced between it and the old stuff. The data sheet indicates the
differences are minor but present.

  Plus-X will NOT be offered in any sheet sizes, only in 35mm, roll film
and some long rolls.

  For the person who reports Plus-X to be dull, I wonder which Plus-X you
are refering to. The sheet film can look quite low contrast under some
circumstances. Plus-X roll film has excellent tonal rendition, so I
suspect, if its the film being talked about, something is wrong with the
processing.

  I've used Plus-X, Verichrome Pan, FP-4, Agfa APX-100, and T-Max 100 in
120 size and gotten excellent images with all. Agfa films tend to be
grainier than other makes of the same speed. Plus-X is probably the finest
grain of the above other than T-Max.  I like T-Max 100 a lot but prefer the
tonal rendition of T-Max 400. 120 is large enough so that grain is not a
problem.

  We have far fewer films to choose from now than in the past. I made up a
list of films available c.1945 which I posted, I think, to the
rec.photo.darkroom list. Its quite extensive. Probably most of the films
listed would not be acceptable today due to graininess, etc., but there
were lots of them. I am afraid film is a shrinking market now, although I
don't think it will disappear anytime soon.

  Film and paper are parishables so a manufacturer can't make up more at a
time than he can expect to sell during the shelf life. That confines
products to those with a large enough and  steady enough market to justify
the mass production methods needed to make the products economically. A
unhappy fact of life.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Plus-X discontinued

I have asked my contact at Kodak for a clarification on this.  He was
not aware of the March 15 posting on their web site until I called it
to his attention.  He said he will get back to me shortly with the
accurate info.  But Plus-X is definitely NOT being discontinued.

Bob

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Latest on Kodak black and white

Forwarded from my press contact at Kodak.

Bob
----------

I guess timing really is everything.  Our web site for B&W films has been
under re-construction (what with all the recent changes ...) and went live
at the end of the day yesterday ... too bad it wasn't the end of the day
three weeks ago.  Anyway, references under the Plus-X, Tri-X and T-Max
sections note that the current films are going away and the updated films
are taking their place.  The URL is intuitive:  www.kodak.com/go/bwfilms.
If you get into another conversation about these films, you can direct folks
there ... that's what I'm doing, starting with you.  Thanks ...

From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002
From: "Mike Durling" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Kodak film codes

Here is a link to Kodak motion picture date codes,
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/support/h1/identificationP.shtml

I haven't seen anything like this on my old B&W negatives but maybe
something similar showed up on some other films.

Mike D

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: Jens Dahlen [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Ilford bubbles again

I looked at a piece of the Ilford film base in a microcope today, at x200
magnification. Wow! Millions and millions of bubbles! I also checked Efke's
and kodak's film material, and they had almost no bubbles at all.

/Patric

from russian camera mailing list:
From: "Roman J. Rohleder" [email protected]
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
Subject: [Russiancamera] Slightly OT: From Agfa to Orwo

Hallo Jay!

>Hello Roman

>The ORWO company sent me, gratis, in the mid-1980s a formula book as well
> (friends from the STASI? :).

Sure, they tried to get you for their service. Maybe you don�t know, but sure
you are listed as "IM Kameramann" in the archives. Check
http://www.bstu.de/englisch/index.htm , there you can get your files. ;-)

> Many of the developer and other photographic recipes
>printed there are "real" AGFA brews - number designations are the same-
>eg. "Orwo 15" is the same as "Agfa 15" (and Ansco 15 in the US).

Orwo is Agfa. In fact, the real Agfa. it is a similar story as Zeiss Oberkochen
and Zeiss Jena. Orwo means "Original Wolfen", which has been the brand name since the
early 60s when the copyright questions were a current problem. Orwo used the
production line of prewar Agfa, they shared the recipes, the products - Agfa Leverkusen
/Agfa Gevaert and Orwo started on the same ground after the war.

In 1990 the area around Wolfen (Sachsen-Anhalt) had been devastated - it has
been the centre of the chemical industry in the GDR - they still try to clean the ground and
remove the old production lines (some still from the 1920/30/40s. One "famous
landmark" had been the "Wolfener Silbersee" ("Silver lake", a title taken from the Karl May
Western novels) - a lake consisting not of water, but of liquid chemical waste
from the ORWO factory. Very toxic.

The collapse of the industry resulted in extreme high rates of unemployment,
the country of Sachsen-Anhalt still suffers from this, they have the highest
rate of all german countries: around 20 %!

Last week they held elections in Sachsen-Anhalt - the former-SED, now PDS, the
dark red socialist went away with nearly 21%!

The current Orwo limits itself to services (like prints) and rebadging films (I think, from Ilford).
Today you can get the original Agfa recipes from Calbe Fotochemie, another
exGDR-company. The Rodinal they sell is even the Original Rodinal (recipe from 1891),
Agfa changed theirs.

What is this "Ansco"?

>The book also contains detailed explanation on photographic emulsion theory.
It also has an extensive section on ORWOColor/ORWOChrom colour
>process chemistry, which I suspect would be Agfacolor compatible (before Agfa
decided to embrace C41 and E6 like the rest of the world :).
As they shared the same production history, I would say so,too.
...

Gruss, Roman

from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Slightly OT: From Agfa to Orwo

Hi Roman

[email protected] wrote:
>What is this "Ansco"?

Ansco was an old American photographic manufacturer.  Started doing business
around shortly after  the daguerrotype was introduced, making silvered copper
plates  for the process. Name was  contraction of "Anthony & Scovill".   For a
time, Ansco was a stiff competitor to Kodak, producing
film, paper, colour materials, cameras, etc.   It joined with Agfa to form
"Agfa-Ansco"  so for  sometime, there were such things as Ansco Brovira bromide
paper  or  an Agfa-Ansco Speedex folding camera.

The union was split during WWII,  for obvious reasons. Around this time it
developed its Ansco Color materials to compete with Kodak's growing
Kodachrome, Kodacolor, and Ektachrome lines.  Ansco's colour films were based
on Agfa's colour coupler incorporated emulsions, but were quite different.
Among the noteworthy products were Anscochrome,  its high speed version  Super
Anscochrome,  Printon colour  print (among the first materials used for high
speed mass consumer colour printing),  and Anscocolor motion picture film.

The company apparently started declining by the 60s, then merged with GAF
(of  the ASA 500 GAF slide film fame), and then shortly went pfffft. The Ansco
name still pops up now and then on rebadged plastic cameras from Hongkong or
Taiwan.

Jay

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Velvia

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
> I have always heard and read that Velvia should be rated at 40. I use it
> there and like the results.

If you get perfect results rating it at 40, then of course that's what you
should do.  If you got perfect results rating it at 10, that would be what
you should do.  It doesn't matter.  This is why you should never just take
the film maker's word and set everything at the ISO speed on the film box.
Different people like different levels of density and saturation in their
slides.  I happen to rate Velvia at 50 using my hand held incident meters,
and I get results which are perfect in my eyes.  I've shot Velvia in 35mm,
120, 4 X 5 and 8 X 10, in all cases using 50.  But all this means is that
50 is the right speed for ME, not that it is right for anyone else.

Bob

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Jim Noel [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] EI & ISO

Rick,

Establishing a personal EI with B&W can be done using a densitometer, OR
using the paper on which you like  to print. I'll give you the quickest
methods here.

The quickest method which gives you at one time EI and developing time is
the "Nine Negative Test". It takes longer to explain than it does to carry
it out. I'll be happy to attach a copy of it in a direct e-mail.

 The two methods begin similarly:

Basically, light a gray card and take a reading of it with you r meter set
on the ISO. then make a chart for a group of exposures, each of which will
be alternated with a blank frame.(If you are doing this with your Rollei,
don't have blank frames.)

The reading of you  gray card is for Zone V, what you are looking for to
estagblish an EI is Zone I, which is 4 stops darker than Zone V.

So the shooting chart will look something like this:
Zone V exposure
4 stops less light than Zone V (Zone I for the ISO)
3 2/3 stops less light than Zone V
3 1/3 stops less light than Zone V
3 stops less than Zone V
and so forth.

The fim is developed for your normal time, then printed for the least time
to produce paper black.

The first frame which is lighter than paper black indicates your EI.
Obviously this explanation can get very lengthy and is better done directly.
Once you read the complete directions, I am sure you will have little
trouble understanding and carrying out the testing. Upon completion of the
EI test, a test for development time is done which will now reallyhave some
value. The two work together, thus one isno good without the other.
I do a similar type of test for chromes,but most people simplyu shot a
series of bracketed exposures  and choose theone which looks the best to
them.

Jim

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 
From: Philippe Tempel [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] EI & ISO

--- Rick Huber [email protected] wrote:
> Cool, another use for the 2 densitometers I got for
> a bargin! :)  This
> above also makes sense to me. I guess I just never
> thought about doing it
> for B&W. I was always wrapped up in improving my
> poor B&W picture quality.

You're all set with the demsitometers.  For B&W film
with a normal developer (well, one that doesn't stain
like Pyrogallol and Pyrocatechin based ones) you want
an exposure for Zone I to come out about 0.10 - 0.12
above base + fog.  In simpler terms that means you
want to be able to shoot a frame 4 stops less than
what the meter says and have it come out to about 1/3
stop more than a blank frame.  If you can do that,
then you can "expose for the shadows" correctly.  The
"develop for the highlights" part comes after this is
nailed down and will determine your development time
(and temp).

Shoot a single color poster board with no shadows on
it.  Meter it.  That's Zone V.  Decrease the value by
4 stops (or EV values).  That's Zone I.  Now expose 4
less, that value, and 4 more.  Write down what you
did.  Process the film with the recommended time and
temp for your developer.  Now, with your B&W
densitometer, measure an unexposed part of the film.
That's base+fog.  Finally, measure all of the frames
you shot and subtract them from the base+fog number.
Your EI is the one that comes closest to 0.10 - 0.12.
This website has a lot of good Zone System info:

http://www.cicada.com/pub/photo/zs/

After you know your EI, you can find your development
time.  Shoot another roll like last time but expose
for Zone VIII.  You want to get 1.20 - 1.25 above
base+fog for a condenser or 1.30 - 1.35 for a
diffusion enlarger.  During this part of the test, you
will only vary the development time.  One rule of
thumb I've heard is to use about +/- 30% for old style
emulsion films and +/- 10% for newer technology
T-grain films.  Reiterate the test until you can
process the Zone VIII frame to be in the recommended
range.  Whatever time to took is your development time
for normal contrast (n).

> Whenever I need a good laugh I tell a friend that I
> am spending the weekend
> working on my B&W technique. His response is always
> the same, "Dude, how
> hard can it be? There are only two colors!" Keeps me
> in good humor for days...

Mmm.  I'm sure we all wish that it was that easy... ;-)

From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: First rolls of MF: Results and questions
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002

Tony

Terlecki [email protected] writes
>Have you considered developing colour film yourself? I've just gone
>this route mainly for quality control reasons. Ignoring equipment
>setup costs, I'm developing a roll of 120 (E6 process) for about 2
>Euro. There are quite a few used Jobo processors around nowadays.

I remember an E6 developer kit test in a UK magazine. They took the
approach of being inexperienced darkroom workers and followed the
instructions with each kit to the letter. The end result showed most of
the kits produced very poor or inconsistent results. Not something that
really encouraged me to do it myself.

--
John

Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke film: Du Pont?

Guido wrote:
>- on the cardboard box it says "Made in Croatia under licence - Du Pont de
>Nemours Deutschland gmbh". Eh!? Du Pont? is Du Pont into film making?

Du Pont has a long and proud history of making film and photo chemistry,
though their direct involvement ended in the 1960's.  Before this, however,
they had bought out Dr Schleussner GMBH (which claimed to be the world's
oldest manufacturer of photographic film and chemistry); Schleussner made
ADOX film, the miracle emulsion of the 1950's.  Du Pont then licensed the
manufacture of the ADOX formulations to Fotokemika Zagreb.

Marc
[email protected] 

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke film: Du Pont?

 you wrote:
>You wrote:
>> Unfortunately, Defender acetate support seems to
>> have been the most unstable of all. Many negatives on safety base from the
>> 1940s and 1950s on Defender film have been lost because of the
>> decomposition of the support, known in the movie industry as "Vinegar
>> Syndrome" because it is often accompanied by an acetic acid odor.
>
>I have many old sheet negatives that are afflicted with pox-like blisters,
>and altho I've never associated the acetic acid odor directly with these
>negatives (vs non-afflicted negatives), the odor is unmistakeable when
>browsing thru my 'shoe-box' collections of old negs. Does the decomposition
>manifest itself in blistering?
>
> pk

It can. There are a lot of symptoms including regeneration of the
anti-halation dye to a colored form, which shows up as a blotchy stain. The
support can sort of shrivel, edge frilling is common. Some of the products
of decomposition attack the image. I suspect a Google search for "Vinegar
Syndrome" will turn up much more. There are a couple of web sites with the
details.

  It was thought that when safety base film was introduced it would be
stable, unlike cellulose nitrate. It turns out that while it does not have
the explosion hazard of decomposing nitrate its not much more stable. This
has been a serious blow to the motion picture industry who switched
completely to acetate base film about 1951. I think _Sunset Boulevard_ was
the last feature picture to be photogrphed on nitrate.

  There are several variations of Acetate or safety base. Some are much
more stable than others. The original safety base, introduced in the late
1920s is evidently more stable than other, later, forms.

  Kodak made no nitrate base still film after some very early date,
probably c.1930, but Agfa and DuPont/Defender made it up to 1950.

  Because the motion picture industry finally woke up to the fact that old
movies are valuable property the problems with both kinds of film base have
been researched pretty thoroughly. Much of this information is available on
line.

 I think Allan Zak or Eric Goldstein may have the URLs.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Acetate film base

you wrote:
>Are you sure about the explosion stuff?  I was under the impression that
>the dangerous stuff was nitrate based not acetate.  I think we are talking
>about acetate based safety film which was calles safety film because it
>wasn't explosive when degraded.
>
>David

  Acetate does not present an explosion hazard either in good condition or
when decomposing. Decomposing acetate may burn better than intact stuff but
is not like nitrate base.

  Nitrate evolves oxygen when it burns so it self-sustaining. It will burn
under water and under sand. About the only way to extinguish a nitrate fire
is to eliminate the fuel.

  Decomposing nitrate can also spontaneously ignite if the ambient
temperature exceeds 100F. Concentrated gasses evolved from decomposing
nitrate can be explosive. Its vital that containers and storage facilities
be well ventillated.

  Generally smalll collections of still film do not present a fire hazard
but large amounts of stored motion picture film can be very hazardous.

  The decomposition process of nitrate is well known and details can be
found in the technical literature.

  The decomposition of Acetate (safety base) film was discovered fairly
recently. Unfortunately, there is little that can be done to stop the
decomposition of either kind of base other than freezing it. Valuable
negatives should be copied and those on Nitrate destroyed. All nitrate will
eventually decompose but, like Acetate, there is a larger difference
between manufacturers. There is nitrate film which is now nearly a century
old which is still stable.

The difference stems from the exact method of manufacture and formulas used
when the film was made.

  There was great resistance in the movie industry to changing to safety
base since it was inferior both optically and mechanically to nitrate.
Current film base is very stable and has good properties.

you wrote:
>>[email protected] writes:
>>
>>
>>>Does the decomposition
>>>manifest itself in blistering?
>>
>>
>>Yes, before it explodes!!  Inform yourself about that stuff.

From nikon mailing list:
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: ASA100 Print  Film

you wrote:
>     Bricks are 20 rolls to a box.  They are in their plastic canisters,
>without the individual cardboard boxes, so if you use the box ends as a
>reminder save an old one to put in the back of the camera.

Not always. Some Kodak bricks are shrink-wrapped packages with 20 rolls,
each in individual cardboard boxes. Pro-Packs (usually 50 rolls of 35mm)
are not in individual cardboard boxes, although each roll is in its
individual plastic cannister. Some Ilford bricks are ten rolls, each in
cardboard boxes. As I said, it varies.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2002 
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Efke 25 film

See this link to the dr5 website re Efke 25:

http://www.dr5.com/efke25.html

This lab in NY may begin to carry Efke film.

R.J.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 01 May 2002
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Agfa Scala (was Nathan's PAW 17 substitute - Londonsnaps)

you wrote:
> John A. Lind at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Someone may have come up with a kit that processes the film, but AFIK it's
>> not Agfa.  I purchase mine with mailers for Color Reflections in Miami,
>> Florida that is licensed for Agfa's process (used to be CLM).
>
>Tetenal makes a kit to do it at home, but they aren't available in the USA.
>
>Bob

  Agfa has a list of labs processing Scala hiding on their web site
somewhere: http://www.agfa.com

 The official process is proprietary but see below:

  Kodak makes or made (one is never sure these days) a reversal kit for
T-Max which should work on Scala. However you will have to discover the
right first development time experimentally.

  Scala appears to be a conventional reversal film. One would have to
experiment with developing times but I suspect the old formulas for
processing Agfa reversal motion picture film would work.  Reversal
processing is not difficult but the developing time for the first
development is quite critical.

  Official Scala processing probably uses newer chemistry than the 1940's
stuff for the motion picture film. The MSDS for the T-Max kit and for
reversal color films indicate that some rather exotic chemicals are used,
especially in the bleach and for fogging during development.

  The use of a fogging second developer may have advantages beyond simply
eliminating the light flashing step, perhaps they result in more complete
conversion of the remaining halide to metallic silver.

  In any case, I have the Agfa formulas if anyone is interested. I've
posted these before, but of course didn't save the text. I am now saving
all this stuff to avoid bloody fingers (a, la the Beatles "I've got
blisters on me fingers".

  FWIW, nearly any B&W film or paper can be reversed. The process is not
complicated although it does have several steps. As mentioned above, only
the first development is critical, the other steps are carried out to
completion.

  Films intended for reversal differ from ordinary negative films in that
they have enough very slow halide particals in the emulsion to make sure of
having enough for the final image. This makes exposure and first
development somewhat less critical than otherwise.

  Reversal color development is very much the same except the second
development includes the necessary chemicals to react with the couplers to
produce dye, and that all the silver is removed in a final step.

  While many like to think of Agfa B&W film as "old fashioned" the
structure shown on their data sheets indicates its not so. APX films are
single coated and have the anti-halation coating under the emulsion next to
the subbing (or, perhaps, combined with it)like color film, rather than
being a dye on the back coating. So, probably Scale is also not just an old
emulsion being coated again but a modern type of reversal emulsion.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From BJP Equipment News 4 May 2002 - Polaroid is discontinuing sundry 35mm instant
slide film products... Stock life can be extended by a few years by refrigerating...

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 
From: Jim Hemenway [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kodachrome 25 discontinued

> >
> > I wonder why they don't offer Kodachrome 64 in 120 format?  It
> > would be nice to see how it performs  in my 'cord. ;-)
>
> they used to.  i think i have one roll in a freezer in the basement.
> hardly seems worth shooting at this point.
>
> -rei

You might want to shoot it sooner rather than later... I received the
following from Kodak.  This might be the only place left on the planet
to get your remaining Kodachrome 120 processed.

-----------------------

Due to continuing declines in Kodachrome film sales, the Kodak
Wimbledon-London England Laboratory has discontinued its Kodachrome
Processing operations as of March 30, 2001. However, one final film
processing "run" will be made on 1 October 2001 at the address listed
below.

Kodak Processing Companies, Ltd.
29 Deer Park Road
Wimbledon SW19 3UG
ENGLAND

Tel: 020 8544 0055
Fax: 020 8540 0794

The cost is 5.30 pounds, payable by credit card.

Kodak will no longer be able to process 120 format Kodachrome film after
this final processing run on 1 October 2001. Kodak announced in February
1996 that Kodachrome film in the 120 format will be discontinued.
Processing was discontinued in the USA in 1998/1999 once the last batch
of films expiration date was reached.

Thank you for visiting our Kodak web site.  If you should have any
questions on Kodak products or services, please be sure to revisit our
site as we are continually adding information to enhance our service.

Sincerely,

Peter Vimislik
Kodak Information Center (USA)
Kodak Professional

800 Lee Road Door C
Rochester, NY  14650-3109

1-800-242-2424  ext. 19 (Monday-Friday, 9am-7pm EST)
http://www.kodak.com/go/professional

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Gold in Efke films?

you wrote:
>I read in a commercial add in an old photo magazine that Adox R 17(Efke R
>50) has the thinnest gold emulsion in the World. Does it really contain gold
>compounds? Maybe Mr. Knoppow can something about this?
>
>/Patric

  Gold is a well known sensitizer. Its use was discovered at Agfa about
1936, by Koslovsky. Mees states that the mechanism isn't well understood
(1951). I haven't checked later books but much of what was puzzeling at
that time is no longer.

  Gold sensitzing seems to be very widely used for high speed emulsions, I
suspect that nearly all film emulsions have some Gold in them.

  I have no idea what Adox meant by refering to the "thinnest" gold
emulsion. Certainly, the film had very thin emulsion compared to other
films of the time. The effect of a thin emulsion is to reduce scattering of
light in the emulsion thus improving its sharpness and resolution.

  Films of today have thinner emulsions than those of the 1950's so I would
suspect the statement might not be true if the comparison was against these
films. Perhaps they meant that some very slow special purpose emulsions
were thinner. Also, printing paper emulsions are very thin and are not
usually specially sensitized (the exception is variable contrast paper).

  The necessity of coating many very thin layers of emulsion on color films
has resulted in a lot of improvement in coating techniques and machinery in
the last fifty years.

 The story (I don't remember anymore where I read it) is that Agfa's
discovery of Gold sensitizing allowed them to nearly double their film
speeds without any change in grain size. This caught Kodak with their pants
down and it took a while for them to catch up.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Wooden spools?
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002

"Stephe" [email protected] wrote...
> OK this is an odd question but when did they stop using wooden centers for
> the spools on 120 film? I bought an old zeiss tengor box camera and just
> wondering when this guy was used last, mostly out of plain curiosity.

It probably depends where.
Anecdotally, I did see wooden rods in 120 film spools as recently as early 70s
in some countries.

Michael

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: fate of polaroid
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002

[email protected] (Todd F. Carney) wrote:

>Speedy2 [email protected] wrote 
>> Serve 'em right! They did the dirty on Kodak and its attempt to market its own
>> instant film
>
>Kodak has done the dirty plenty of times in its corporate history,
>too.  The best example was when they tried to monopolize processing
>for the Kodachrome
>process.  They were ultimately forced to license third-party
>processors, but they wanted to protect their patents.
>
>I might add that the courts agreed that Kodak had infringed Polaroid
>patents in making their own instant process.  Kodak wanted to use its
>superior marketing position to take over an innovation someone else
>created.  Sounds like Microsoft, huh?
>
>> (at a time when I believe that Kodak were making the Polaroid film
>> FOR Polaroid!) and dumped a lot of Kodak instant film users with useless
>> filmless cameras.
>
>Somehow I doubt Kodak was making stuff for Polaroid.  If they were, it
>must have been good evidence that they had access to Polaroids process
>secrets and tried to make illegal use of them.
>
>Todd Carney

   The history of the process used for Polaroid "instant" film goes
back to the early 1930s. Simultaneous and independant work had been
done by several investigators including Edith Wyde of Agfa. Land
managed to get patents partly because some earlier work was simply
unknown.

   As far as the patent infringment action againts Kodak, the courts
didn't decide anything, Kodak gave up. There are several patent law
experts who think Kodak whould have untimately prevailed if they had
continued to defend themselves. Kodak's version of the instant process
was by all reports superior to Polaroid's. Polaroid had been sitting
on its hands for some time.

   Kodachrome was an entirely proprietary process. Kodak's reasons for
wanting to continue control of processing had mainly to do with
maintaining the quality of the process. The suit was really about
including processing in the cost of the film.  This was really an
extension of Kodak's early dedication to push-button photography.
Kodachrome was sold as an entire process which would return finished
color transparencies to the customer rather than just film.

  The Kodachrome process is a complex and difficult one, I rather
doubt that Kodak ever made much money from it.

  Kodak's earlier history is filled with attempts to create a complete
monopoly of photographic products. These were business practices which
were considered quite legal at the time. George Eastman makes Bill
Gates look like a piker and was a lot smarter. Kodak engaged in both
vertical and lateral integration. Eventually, they came a cropper by
trying to control retail sales completely. Their only real competition
was Anthony and Scoville (later to become Ansco and Agfa-Ansco) whose
products were the ones mainly affected by Kodak retailing practices.
This company fought Kodak tooth and nail at the time but Kodak was too
big and had been very smart in their technique of dominating retail
sales to be easily fought.

  All this was ended by the anti-trust actions of the Teddy Roosevelt
administration.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: FYI

Polaroid to leave 35mm market completely.

The news comes after the company's withdrawal from the 35mm film scanner
market.

A spokesperson for the company said that the decision to drop the 35mm
instant slide film range had been taken for commercial reasons.
Originally developed for business slide presentations, the films were
also taken up widely for creative use because of their unique aesthetic
qualities. However, the Polaroid spokesperson said new digital
technologies have eroded the market for business applications and that,
as a consequence, the numbers of creative users have dwindled.

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 
From: daniel taylor [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] 70mm stock choices

Kodak 2424 Aerographic is available in 70mm. The
emulsion is identical to HIE Infrared film in 135. If
you enjoy IR photography you are on your way to IR
Nirvana. check the Kodak site for other 70mm films.

Daniel Taylor
Lightsmythe Studios
Oregon, USA

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002

TW406 wrote:

>> T-Max 100 is all toe, no shoulder.
>
> Not being a film scientist, could someone describe what that means?

The characteristic curve of a fil describes how density increases with
increasing exposure. Typically, density increases little at first, then the
rate of increase picks up for a bit (which is in the "toe" of the curve),
next it becomes constant for a while (the "straight line" portion of the
curve), and finally, when the limit of the amount of silver available in a
film is reached, increase in density will slow down and stop (the "shoulder"
part of the curve).

In practice a film that's "all toe, no shoulder" does have better detail in
highlight areas, the areas getting the most exposure, and thus handles
overexposure better, whereas a film with a pronounced shoulder in the curve
suffers from blocked highlights.

From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Status of Kodachrome Slide Films
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002

I thought I might have read that Kodachrome 25 has been discontinued.  Can
someone tell me if that is true?

I just located about 1,000 slides that were stored in my attic for almost 30
years.  I had used 3 emulsions:  Kodachrome 25, Ectachrome 64 and
Eastmancolor 5254/5247 (a cult film from the 70s--Hollywood 35mm color
negative film that was developed and printed into color-corrected slides be
a handful of labs around the country).

The Eastmancolor stuff was junk.  Some of the slides had lost almost ALL of
their images.  The slides were virtually clear!  What a mistake I made,
using that stuff!

The Ectachromes were pretty good, after 3 decades in the attic.  A little
bit of color loss, but not bad.

The Kodachromes were magnificent!  Clear, sharp, with colors that jumped
right out at you!  Scenes that were so razor-sharp that it almost hurt my
eyes just focusing on them.

After 20+ years of shooting print films, I'd like to return to doind some
Kodachromes--if they're still out there.  Can someone fill me in?

From: Stephe [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 

Gordon Moat wrote:

> I hope that at least APX 100 will continue. They already dumped APX 25.

APX 25 was my main B&W film and was sad when I found they had dumped it.
Their other B&W films never seemed very good to me compared to what other
people sell.
--
stephe
http://www.geocities.com/kievgurl/

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: "35mm frame sized sensor"
Date: Sat, 25 May 2002

Mxsmanic wrote:

> That's why only amateurs buy Technical Pan, Kodachrome, and Velvia.

By the way: i've just unearthed an old post from my files in which Zeiss'
Kornelius Fleischer mentioned that testing at Carl Zeiss, in search for a
replacement for the Kodak Ektar 25 film they used at Zeiss as test film (200
lpmm), showed that Velvia (exposed at ISO 40) reaches 160 lpmm. Very good.
However, Kodak Portra VC, rated at ISO 160, is showing the same 160 lpmm!
I know, i know, one is a reversal film, the other isn't. But it illustrates
that the "slow = high resolution" dictum is rapidly losing validity.

From: Joseph Chen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Film versus Digital
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002

NY Times May 23, 2002
Tapping Into Its Strengths, the Empire of Film Strikes Back
By IAN AUSTEN

WHEREVER he goes, Chip Simons usually takes a compact digital camera
along in case he needs to grab a quick snapshot. But when it comes time
for real work, Mr. Simons, a magazine and advertising photographer who
lives in Bosque Farms, N.M., reverts to film.

While that is partly a response to his clients' wishes, he said, film
still has a substantial edge over digital photography in capturing
details and in overall quality.

"There's probably a gigabyte's worth of information on this little piece
of film," Mr. Simons said of the 6-by-6-centimeter transparencies
produced by most of his film cameras. "There's no way any scanner can
even get it all. There's not much of a substitute for a piece of film."

While the world's three major makers of conventional film -- Eastman
Kodak, Fuji Photo Film and Agfa-Gevaert -- are all heavily involved in
digital imaging, they have not given up on their traditional products.
Investing in film research and development in the early 21st century may
seem a bit like trying to design a better steam locomotive. But Steven
Hammond, a senior photographic engineer in the professional products
division of Fuji, said that there was still a lot of room for improvement.

"Even though film has been around for 100 years, we're still only using
18 to 20 percent of what's theoretically possible in the emulsion," he said.

Even customers who are less discerning than professional photographers
may continue to stick with film cameras for some time to come, Mr.
Hammond said. He credited improvements over the last five years in film
technology for a steady increase in the use of disposable film cameras,
which Fuji estimates now account for 25 percent of the United States
photographic market.

"We joke around here that film will only be in trouble when someone
comes out with a $6.95 digital camera," he said.

Much of the research at Kodak and Fuji is aimed at finding ways to
improve the light sensitivity, or speed, of film without producing
images that are grainy or lack sharpness. To do so, researchers are
getting down to the atomic level. Mr. Hammond said that such
improvements were a priority because light sensitivity would probably
remain a weak point for digital cameras.

When the light sensors in digital cameras, usually charge-coupled
devices, or C.C.D.'s, are set to a sensitivity higher than the
equivalent of a film with an I.S.O. rating of 800, Mr. Hammond said,
they usually generate distortions in images known as noise.

Because film is such a mature technology, he added, it is potentially
much easier to improve its sensitivity than it is to improve digital
sensors. "High speed is where film has its greatest potential," he said.

Common photographic film, whether color or black-and-white, uses an
emulsion containing extremely fine crystals of silver halide. When the
camera's shutter opens, photons hit the crystals and begin to transform
them into elemental silver. This is known as the latent image, and
developing the film completes the transformation of the exposed silver
halide crystals into silver.

In its most basic form, color film has three layers of silver halide,
each sensitive to red, green or blue light. (Modern color film has as
many as 13 layers performing a variety of jobs.) Development of color
film also involves extra steps. After the silver images are developed,
color dyes couple to the metallic silver specks. Special bleach is then
used to dissolve the silver image, leaving only the color dye record behind.

The easiest way to make film more sensitive is to add more silver halide
to its coating. But in the past, that also meant that the resulting
pictures suffered from a coarse pattern of silver grains.

About 15 years ago, a group of researchers at Kodak led by Terry Taber
introduced a process that makes silver grains thinner and less obvious
in images. Traditional grains are roughly cube-shaped. The thinner
grains are shaped like flat tabs and are known as tabular grains (Kodak
calls them T-Max). Despite their smaller overall volume, the tabular
grains have the same capturing ability of traditional grains because
they cover roughly the same area on the film's surface.

The improvements resulting from the development of tabular grains and
other technologies have been striking, at least in the view of the
people who did the work. Mary Jane Hellyar, a Kodak vice president and
general manager who is also the company's chief technical officer for
consumer imaging, said that 800-speed film today, for example, has the
grain, resolution, contrast and other characteristics of a much slower
film of a decade ago.

Most film companies, including Fuji, have introduced their own
thin-grain technologies. Now, said Dr. Taber, Kodak's associate director
of research, scientists are boosting the ability of individual silver
halide grains to capture photons. "We're going after this fundamental
aspect of efficiency," he said.

Normally, every photon that strikes the silver halide in film is
converted into an electron to form the latent image. But two years ago
Kodak researchers announced a way to double the number of electrons
produced by each photon. This process, known as two-electron
sensitization, takes advantage of the fact that in color film, photons
are first converted to electrons in the surrounding dye and then move to
the silver halide to create the latent image.

The Kodak researchers developed dye molecules that after being hit by
one photon give up two electrons to the silver halide.

By getting two electrons from every photon, the process should make it
possible to double the light sensitivity of film without adding any more
image-distorting silver grains. Late last year, Kodak relied on the
double-electron technology to introduce a specialized film that is used
in the creation of final movie prints. Dr. Hellyar suggested that it
would gradually be introduced into more common types of film.

But greater sharpness isn't to everyone's taste. Mr. Simons prefers
Fuji's film to Kodak's products for his work, which includes portraits
of animals illuminated in strange colors. And while he does not plan to
shift to digital photography anytime soon, he also longs for the film of
the past.

"New films are too sharp," he said. "There's nothing soft about them.
They don't glow anymore."

From: [email protected] (norpinal)
Newsgroups:rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)
Date: 29 May 2002 

There are two interesting developments

  1) High resolution Gigabitfilm from germany

   There are great numbers of discussion in Minox group

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minox-FAQ/messagesearch?query=gigabitfilm

  2) The company which does research on high resolution developers
has developed several high resolution developer to use on microfilm
and normal BW film with stunning results.

   There are a number of discussions and sample pictures taken with
Agfa Copex Rapid at ASA 25 and develope with SPUR developer from
Minox camera in

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minox-FAQ

[Ed. note: a handy tip for those wanting to homebrew their own glass plates...]
From camera makers mailing list:
Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Making glass negatives

I can't remember which list it was on, but a few days ago someone was asking
about making their own glass plate negatives.  The Arno Press "Encyclopedia
of Photography," published in 1911 and reprinted by Arno in 1974 has several
relevant entries, especially at "coating," "dry plates" and "emulsion."

Marty

From: T.P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Hexar AF Lens too Contrasty ??
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002

Subhash Tiwari [email protected] wrote:
>Recently bought a silver Konica Hexar AF camera on Ebay. Very ergonomic,
>sharp lens etc., but notice that on both rolls used so far (Kodak 200 and
>Agfa Optima 100) there appears to be too much contrast. Whereas there was
>loss of shadow detail in some darker areas, the whites were washed out. This
>is not SO obvious on the negatives. The prints for the 2 rolls were made at
>2 different labs, weeks apart. Granted these were outdoor pics taken on
>bright sunny days in Florida, I have never had this happen before. So here
>is the question-
>
>Can one have too much of the much desired lens contrast , and is that true
>of the 35/2 lens on the Konica Hexar AF camera ??

You can *never* have too much contrast in a lens.  Everyone desires
greater "sharpness", or so it seems.  Sharpness is a combination of
resolution (the ability to reproduce fine detail) and contrast.

Cheaper lenses than your 35mm f/2 produce lower contrast.  Film
manufacturers compensate for this by making high contrast emulsions
which give the appearance of high contrast when using cheap, low
contrast lenses.

With your excellent Konica lens, you can use films which have not had
their contrast artificially enhanced.  Try Fujicolor NPS ISO 160 or
NPH ISO 400.  These are low contrast professional emulsions and will
be ideally suited to your lens(es).

Also, have them processed at a pro lab rather than a minilab at the
supermarket or the mall, and you will see a *massive* improvement.

HTH.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Infrared filter inside Rollei TLR?

...
>that, then why not just buy HIE in 70mm and cut it
>down?  The only extra work seems to be making the wood
>u-shaped film slitter which doesn't sound that hard.
>
  In fact someone is doing just this. I am forwarding this from the
Pure-Silver list.
----

List members, I'm very excited to announce that I am now offering Kodak
Infrared film in 120 size. The film is Black and White Infrared Aerographic
film 2424 from Kodak. It is identical in every way to Kodak HIE.

I buy it in 70 mm wide rolls, 150 ft long. I have been working on this
project for almost a year now. I have built 2 machines that cut and

roll the film, so neither process is done by hand. This makes it much more
precise and minimizes defects, transport problems and light leaks. It also
allows me to cut the film down BOTH edges.

Although I must leave perforations along 1 edge, I have precisely cut the
film along the area BETWEEN the edge of the film and the sprocket holes.
The area is normally 2 mm, but I have removed about 1.5 mm of that,
minimizing the intrusion of sprocket holes into the image area. In

fact, unless you are using a filed out negative carrier, you will virtually
never see the sprocket holes in your prints, no extra cropping
necessary. This will save money for those of you who don't have your own
darkrooms and don't want to pay extra for custom printing at the photo lab.

LIGHT TIGHTNESS!

This film is extremely light tight, I have even loaded it in full daylight!
(with the sun to my back of course) Going even to subdued lighting is not
necessary. The machine rolling allows me to wind the film very tightly onto
the spool. This provides the extra protection from fogging.

IT CAN BE  UNLOADED even in a very bright room, though if you unload it
under full daylight, I would recommend you putting a dark cloth over the

camera. The reason is that the camera back doesn't roll the film as tightly
as I do, so it is less light safe when unloading. Normal indoor lighting
levels, or even open shade should be dark enough though. If you

have doubts, feel free to test it yourself. One user successfully unloaded
it under full daylight, your results may vary.

In the past, Kodak had problems with pinholes. I have been over this issue
with them several times and have a good relationship with the Aerial Film
folks at Kodak. Back around November 2001, they even advised me not to buy
any film until January 2002 when they would have the problems fixed. I buy
directly from Kodak and test each batch of film I receive from them for
pinholes. If I find pinholes, I return it to Kodak for replacement. If not,
I cut the film down and roll it. I cannot not offer a guarantee beyond this.

Currently I am only offering 120 size. I do not have any plans to offer 220
size.

I have priced the film very attractively at $12.50!

That makes it very comparable to HIE 35 mm rolls. I am offering 120 size

film canisters to store the film in before and after exposure at a price

of $1.00 extra, so you have a choice to buy them or not.

PayPal or money order only. Personal checks are not accepted

There is a 3 roll minimum. Shipping is a flat rate of $5.00. US addresses only

Also at this time I am not shipping international orders because of the
hassles involved with customs and fear of airport X-rays. This is the first
announcement of the film though and I may offer international shipments in
the future.

Here is the link to my web site describing the film and ordering
information. There are tips for loading and unloading the film, frequently
asked questions and a host of other good info on shooting and metering IR
film, even a page on how to build your own IR meter.

http://www.DavidRomano.com

Questions? email me at [email protected]

Thanks!

David Romano

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From koni omega mailing list:

Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Paul R." 
Subject: Re: [KOML] Re: Before I spend $300 (film recommend'ns)
To: [email protected]
Reply-To: [email protected]

--- Joe Sjostrom  wrote:
>  � �Yesterday I dropped a check in the mail for
> purchase of a nice clean model 200 with a 90 lens,
> and hopefully within a week I will be unpacking the
> camera and loading a roll of film. I paid $200 for
> it, not $300, which is good, but I guess I still
> need to buy a flash cord.
>  � �Thanks to Craig, Nancy, Paul, Tom, Eve, Jason,
> Jack, for your comments and suggestions. Time and
> thought was obvious in your messages.
>  � So here's another question: can you recommend a
> film that has good Koni compatability? � �
>  Your messages have mentioned these films:
> Ilford XP2 (b&w, process C41, according to Ilford's
> website)
> Ilford Delta 400 (b&w, conventional b&w chemistry,
> according to Ilford's website)
> Fuji Velvia and Provia 100F (color transparency,
> process E6, according to Fuji's website)
>  � On a light table, photo quality is easier (for
> me) to judge from a positive transparency than from
> a negative. But it's not really practical to project
> slides bigger than 35mm, and I've always heard you
> get better prints from negatives than from
> positives. �
>  � Am I the only one who still uses Kodak film? For
> the last 15 years I've been shooting Kodak 200 print
> film in 35mm, with no grounds for complaint.
>  � Any suggestions? Somebody please tell me what  to
> do!
> Thanks again,
> Joe Sjostrom
>
Joe,

I'll take the bait again.  And I'll echo Clive's
sentiments about the rewards of shooting
transparencies.  Even if you don't have a MF
projector, just looking at trannies (even 35mm) on a
light table is fantastic, a real joy.  And I've had
some great prints made from slides.  They also scan
just fine, for digital processing and output.

But I shoot negatives as well -- for b&w, for a
certain look, or for more exposure latitude in
challenging or rapidly-changing conditions.  (Though
I'm Photoshop-friendly, I still don't think you can
achieve everything digitally.  And even getting close
sometimes takes inordinate amounts of work.)

Each film has its own look and response
characteristics, and only you can judge whether one
fits your style and looks "good" to you in your final
application.  I suggest you take some of the
'consensus picks' you get from this group and other
sources, and try them out on your favorite subjects
under various conditions -- using cheaper 35mm film!
Then, narrow it down to a half dozen or fewer
(depending on your tolerance for stocking different
films), and stick to those for a while.  You'll get
used to how each one 'behaves', and you'll get good at
getting the results you're after.

Now, a few of my own favorites:

Velvia:  For scenics.  Supersaturated, outstanding
greens & blues.

Provia:  For scenics when I need a little more speed,
& 'all purpose' travel shooting.  Very fine-grained,
and still very good saturation.

Astia:  For people.  Good skin tones, not too
contrasty.

Portra NC:  For people.  More latitude and lower
contrast than Astia.

Ilford Delta 400:  b&w scenics.

Plus X: b&w people.

TMAX 100:  b&w for a softer, lower-contrast look.

And yes, I do have a sizable portion of one
refrigrator shelf devoted to film!  (What a sacrifice
-- less beer space.)

Good luck, and congrats on the 200 purchase!

-Paul Reese

From koni omega mailing list:
From: "Beaver, John" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [KOML] Curiouser and curiouser
Date: Fri, 21 Jun 2002 

Jon,

I think I'm the only one doing it quite this way -- I'm using cyanotype as
"film", directly in the camera, instead of as a printing technique.  Since
it's literally millions of times less sensitive than silver-based film (and
sensitive only to ultraviolet), pretty much everything has to be approached
differently.  I have a brief description of the technique at:
www.photo.net/users/Godoggo/Cyano/cyano.html

Anyone who is interested in this can contact me directly, rather than
cluttering the Koni-omega list, since you're certainly not going to do this
with a Koni! (email is [email protected])

I have, however, been having fun simply contacting printing the 6x7 negs
onto homemade cyanotype paper.  Once you have the chemicals, it's easy as
pie, and you can do interesting things by altering how you brush the
chemicals on the paper.  6x7 negatives are big enough to at least be
interesting as "miniatures," and it can be intersting to scan the print at
high resolution.  Here's an example of a Koni 6x7 negative contact printed
in this way:  http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=792232

Congrats on getting your first Koni!

--John

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Portrait film choices?

C41 films all have a very high tolerance to blocking up highlights because
the final image is a dye replacement of the silver. I tend to prefer XP2
Super for overexposure/lower contrast exposure methodology, but T400CN
works well too.

Godfrey

> I am a little dense, it's true, but what Martin and others are saying seems
> to be the case.  I will try a roll at 160 and tell you how good it works.
> PS, I've always shot these ISO 400 stocks at 320 with good results, but
> lower speeds will certainly increase "richness" if they don't lose highlight
> detail.          

From: [email protected] (Richard Knoppow)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Idle speculation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2002

[email protected] (Ellis Vener) wrote:

>I just read something in the past day or so that leads me to believe
>that bergger does indeed make their own film and paper, or at least
>has it made to their specifications.

  John Horoway, the distributor, says Bergger stuff is manufactured
for them to their specs, they don't have a factory.

  Now one can speculate just what "to their specs" means but it is
only speculation without some substantiation.

  So, no, they don't have a factory, but their stuff might still be
unique to the brand if made according to formulas and methods
specified by them, or even to meet some sensitometric requirement
different from the manufacturer's stock product.

  Sensitometry or even odor might tell a lot.

---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA.
[email protected]

Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2002 
From: "Francis A. Miniter" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Future of color sheet film (8x10)?

I read an article recently that Playboy shoots all of its centerfold
pictures with 8x10 transparency film.  Nothing else produces the same
quality.  (I guess they do not have to enlarge much for the printed
image!)

Francis A. Miniter

Johnny Zasada wrote:

> Every once in a while it itches me to get into 8x10 large format
> photography. I keep hearing the equipment is easy and cheap to get now
> - due to digital - though I have not found this to be true, yet.
>
> Anyway, I'm wondering how well support by the film manufacturers for
> 8x10 and large format in general will be in the furture. If the three
> major companies quit making B&W sheet film, you could probably switch
> to some east-european or asian company, but what about color trannie
> and negative material?
>
> Are their any rumours about color sheet film being discontinued by
> Kodak or Fuji?
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Johnny

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei]: I screwed up...

you wrote:
>Having taken a few nice-ish shots of my cricket team a couple of weeks
>back, www.ingenium.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Dodgers/page_01.htm has a few rough
>scans of them up, I thought I'd repeat the trick last night.
>
>Unfortunately, having taken 3 for 9 off three overs (meaningless, i know,
>to those of you stateside, but it did get me the man of the match award), I
>shot off a roll of  what I thought was FP5 125ASA film.  Course, when I
>opened the  back, turns out I was shooting Tri-X 400.
>
>I guess this sort of thing is kind of save-able in the developing tank, as
>under-exposure is way better than over-exposure.  But its not the sort of
>thing I've yet graduated to - so far I've not deviated from the
>instructions on the reverse of the label.  Can anybody help?  The
>developers on my shelf are Jessops Econodev Universal 2 and Ilford Ilfosol.
>
>Cheers in advance
>
>
>Matt
>
  Most modern films have at least a ten stop _latitude_ for overexposure.

  If you want to lose about one stop of speed develop in full strength
Ilford Perceptol or Kodak Microdol-X. That will give you full shadow detail
and extremely fine grain but not super dense negatives. Pulling development
time about 30% will lose another stop of speed but also lower contrast
about one paper grade.

  BTW, underexposure is a far more difficult problem. If the speed is
measured by the ISO method (Ilford claims they do something else but don't
specify what) the exposure is the very minimum which will result in
adequate shadow detail, there is simply no latitude for underexposure.
Overdevelopment can "push" the toe region up in contrast, appearing to
raise film speed, but there will still be a loss of shadow detail.
Overexposure by two stops is really within the "normal" exposure range of
the film. Most film is astonishingly tollerant of overesposure.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

[ed. note: Mr. Brick is a noted photographer and photobook author, as well as a digital camera systems designer!]
from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Portrait film choices?

 Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video wrote:

>First, Portra B&W400 is available in 120 and 220. Second, that's not
>helping the fellow who began this thread who needs 100-160 ISO film.
>Unfortunately Portra B&W is not available in any ISO other than 400.
>
>Kodak offers three chromogenic B&W films (Portra400, B&WPlus, and TCN).
>Ilford offers one (XP-2) As far as I know there is no chromogenic film in
>any ISO other than 400, so the individual who began this thread is limited
>to shooting with ND filters or using a traditional b&w film like Plus-X or
>FP-4 or TMax 100 or Delta 100.

Both Kodak TCN & Portra B&W are very very happy when used at 100-200. I,
after much testing, generally use T400CN B&W film at 200. If it is very
bright, I go to 100, or even 50.

T400CN does not block up. It is very happy at these ASAs. It actually
produces better images at slower speeds than at 400. I reserve 400 for
foggy days. Here are the words from the Kodak site:

"However you capture or print your image, T400 CN Film has the versatility
you need. Wide exposure latitude gives you high-quality prints from
negatives exposed at speeds from EI 25 to 1600."

You can shoot T400CN at 100-160 with impunity and the results will be stellar.

Jim

Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why Transparency?

A transparency lit from behind or projected looks a lot better than a print
from a negative.  It's a question of dynamic range, mostly.  Transparencies,
properly lit, have a much larger range than a print on paper can ever have.

I shoot mostly transparency film, for this reason.  The results just look
better.

"DarrenH" [email protected] a Tcrit
> I read this line today on Luminous Landscape:
>
> "...The pro and the serious fine-art photographer typically shoots colour
> transparency material..."
>
> My question is:  why?  I went to my local photography museum and I saw
> prints, on paper.  I go to the mall and I see ads in light boxes lit from
> behind.  When and where are transparencies appropriate?
>
> Thanks for your time,
> D

From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002

"Mxsmanic" [email protected] wrote:
>
> Some recent Nikon documentation I have still refers to 120 format as
> "Brownie film."

Yes. Buro-ni (where "-" means hold the sound a bit longer, and "ni" is
pronounced "knee") is the standard Japanese term for MF film (MF cameras are
usually referred to as chuuban) in current Japanese. It's completely normal
usage, and no Japanese speaker would find it strange/quaint/antiquated in
the slightest. So to translate buro-ni as Brownie is a horrible
mistranslation, and means Nikon's too cheap to pay my rates.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: "Tom" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why do I need to use a medium format camera?
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002

[email protected] wrote 
> for7 wrote:
>
> >>MF isn't for snapshots; without sounding snooty,
>
> > I use my Fuji GA645 for snapshots all the time. Awesome snapshots too :)
>
> Actually ... MF _was_ originally designed for snapshots, unless I'm badly
> mistaken... back when Real Photographers used glass plates and such.
>
> Why, it seems that MF was more the "snapshot" type medium all the way to
> the 50s or 60s around here. That's about when the cheap 35mm cameras
> started to appear and until then, Kodak Brownie, Agfa Box, Agfa Clack,
> cheap folders... Leicas weren't for snapshots and very few people had
> ever heard of such a thing as "Argus".
Nikon produces what they laughingly call a "User's Manual" for the LS8000ED
scanner I bought.  It is pathetic.

Further, in all the references to 120 film in that ridiculous book they call
it (and I am not kidding) "Brownie Film".

That is correct.  Nikon officially refers to 120/220 film as "Brownie Film".

The original "snap shot" format.

Tom

from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: John Youmans [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Re: [HUG] Filters?]

http://www.cambridgeworld.com/kodak_120_film.htm

Daniel Lee [email protected] wrote:
Can someone rec a place to buy it mail order other than bh? Theire
"imported" is out of stock...

from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kodak versus Portra

Portra color neg film and Portra 400 B&W film are aimed at the wedding
photographers. A wedding photographer can shoot both color and B&W, have it
processed together and proofed together and end up with great color and
great B&W photographs.

Kodak T400CN is another chromogenic B&W film but it doesn't print on color
paper very well as does Portra B&W. T400CN is for C41 processing and
printing on any normal B&W paper. single grade, multi-grade, whatever. It's
a good film with gobs of latitude.

You can shoot Kodak cromogenic B&W films from ASA 50 up to 800 with no
processing change. It doesn't block highlights or lose shadows.

Jim
...

from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 
From: Christopher Williams [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Kodak is Portra

Portra 400 B&W is Kodak's 3rd(yes, third) attempt at a B&W C-41 process
film. Funny how Ilford still has XP2 around, but why change the best? Okay,
now I know Portra B&W is for printing on color paper, but XP2 is still the
best C-41 B&W for darkroom work. My opinion anyway. Kodak still has the
orange base that makes for much longer exposure times.

Ilford's Delta films cannot be compared because it would be silver base vs.
dye films. Delta is sort of like Kodak's Tmax T-grain B&W films. I find
Delta to have much better grain and smoother tones. 35mm format or 6x6
format.

Yes, all these Portra films get confusing.

Chris Williams
New Orleans
...

[Ed. note: at the time, this was the same price at B&H Photo Video...]
From: [email protected] (John Eyles)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Best price on Velvia 120
Date: 7 Aug 2002

Universal Film Distributors
www.unidiscountfilm.com
800-872-3456

Exactly $2.89 a roll !
I only dealt with them once, seemed ok.  My brother uses
them all the time and seems happy.

John

P.S.  Have you tried Provia 100F and E100VS ?

>does anyone know of a reliable place I can
>purchase Velvia 120 at around $2.89 a roll?

From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: Slack rollfilm

 Austin Franklin wrote:
>Something that would be of interest, at least to me, is, what is the history
>of the film designation "120" and "220"?  Why did Zeiss stamp "6x9" instead
>of "120"?  Was this film commonly called "6x9" film some 70 years ago?

Kodak held the trademark on "120", so other manufacturers had to name their
films in that size something else.  And Zeiss Ikon decided to use the name
"6x9 B2" as, when they started making film in this size, all of their
cameras using such took 6cm by 9cm negatives.  Later, the film was used in
cameras producing 6cm square or 645 negatives, but the film designation,
having already been fixed, remained in use.

Marc
[email protected]

From Zeiss Interest Group Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 
From: "Per Backman" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Slack rollfilm

Hello,

I think the letters are either Agfa or common German standard.

A 8 exp. 4X6+cm
AB 6 exp. or 12 exp. 4X6+cm
B 1 6 exp 6X6 cm
B2 6 exp 6X9 cm
C 6 exp. or 12 exp. 6X9cm
D 6 exp. or 12 exp. 6+X11cm
etc, etc.

Ensign called their 120 film E20, I think Gevaert called theirs G.20.

I think Zeiss-Ikon films were made by either Perutz or Hauff.

Per
...

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Ortho Film

Larry,

If you already received this information please ignore this.  The Maco Ort
25 film is still available from B&H for $6.95 per roll in 120. I have never
used it.

http://198.77.206.55/links/359.html

R.J.

From: "andy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: when a hobby becomes too expensive
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002

Missy,

    I save bundles of money this way. I have struck a deal with local
grocery retailers to sell me their out dated consumer film for pennies on
the dollar. I in turn use this for my snapshots. I keep it in a cool place
to keep it stable. I sell off the film I do not want, like the APS or
polaroid, consumer E6 stuff, disposable cameras and the like. Sometimes I
have so much of the 35mm around I sell it off on eBay and buy my 120 and
35mm pro film using the proceeds.

    Using a mass retailer like Wal-Mart is ok for your proofing prints, Just
find a High quality lab to print the finished  prints offerd for sale.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ortho Film

Jerry Lehrer wrote:
>Bob
>
>I ask again, is it worth buying a few cartons of Verichrome Pan?
>
>Is it better than Plus-X?   Is Plus-X discontinued?
>
>Jerry

Jerry,

Plus-X Lives (as does Tri-X):
Kodak is now making Tri-X and Plus-X in a new plant.  I believe they
tweaked with the film base and/or how the emulsion is applied to it. Their
catalog designations have been changed, but they still have the same names.

Verichrome Pan is Dead (just within the past month or so):
This film was the successor to Verichrome which (IIRC) was intriduced in
1931, and (IIRC) was among the earliest Kodak's panchromatic B/W
films.  It's my guess many of the pre-WWII B/W's done of motion picture
celebrities made using Verichrome.  Verichrome Pan replaced Verichrome in
1956.  I shed a tear with its demise.  It was one of the medium format
films I wanted to try with a cyan filter.  VP was the first film I used in
a Kodak 620 folding camera.  Developed the negatives in a makeshift garage
darkroom my father built and made contact prints from them.

I've got some Plus-X and Ilford FP4 to try the cyan filter with next.

-- John

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ortho Film

 you wrote:
>Richard and John
>
>Ah yes, orthochromatic film.  I used it a lot many years ago, but just
>for two diverse types of subjects.  For portraits of business executives,
>and for nudes.  (No, not taken together!).
>
>BTW, a while back someone said that Verichrome Pan was discontinued.
>I discovered someone with a few cases of it in the freezer.  Is it worth
>buying a few cartons?  Is Plus-X still being made?
>
>Jerry

  Plus-X roll film is one of the films to be made in the new Kodak plant,
the sheet variety is discontinued.

  Verichrome Pan was discontinued not too long ago. I always liked it, if
you can get it at a decent price go for it. I had bricks in my fridg for
years. It seems to have a long life.

  Kodak claims Plus-X roll film is similar to Verichrome Pan but its not
the same emulsion although the characteristics are similar. Its probably
the closest thing to V-Pan.

  Verichrome Pan replaced the original Verichrome around 1958. The original
was a high green sensitive ortho film, double coated and meant for use in
box cameras. There, the ortho sensitivity results in sharper pictures
because it does not show all of the chromatic aberration of the simple
lenses used in those cameras. The first film I ever developed was
Verichrome: in a tray under a ruby bulb. I can see it now, the image
appearing every so slowly (I was about eight) as a see-sawed the film. What
a thrill, I've never gotten over it.

  Verichrome Pan is a "modern" film in that it has a relatively thin
emulsion and good resolution, quite fine grain, and very good latitude and
tonal rendition.

  Kodak has obviously tried to reduce the number of products it makes by
consolidating types. Plus-X has retouching surfaces, its meant for pro use.
It emulsion is close enough to V-Pan to meet a specification, although it
may not look quite the same, so V-Pan went, leaving Plus-X as the Kodak
ISO-125 film. Plus-X is good stuff, the roll film is a medium-toe film, not
the upswept very long toe emulsion used for the sheet film. The sheet film
is meant to exagerate highlights, in fact, its probably a good choice to
use with an othochromatic filter to get the Karsh look I mentioned. The old
"portrait" films had this same sort of upswept characteristic.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Gobs of Free film

I just wanted to tell everyone about Fuji. Earlier this year they ran a
promotion. If you send in the UPC codes from various products (different
amount of points for different products) they would send you gift premiums.
Loupe's, waist packs, and light boxes. I had enough UPC's (200 points
worth) to get two 8"x10" slim portable light boxes. The promotion ended on
July 31 and I got in just under the wire. Procrastination!

I got a notice back that they had run out of the light boxes and they would
not be available until October or November. But instead, I could have 50
rolls of Fuji color film (what I use) of any size, for each premium. That
meant I could get 100 rolls of film (two premiums.)

I said OK, I'd like 20 rolls of 220 Provia 100F and 80 rolls of 220 Velvia.

It arrived yesterday. 100 rolls of 220 transparency film (20 pro-packs.)
$750 worth. But free since I had already purchased the film from which the
UPC code came.

Cool!!!

And they are running a new promotion. The UPC codes from this free film is
valid for the new promotion.

:)  :)  :)

Jim

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ortho film

 you wrote:
>Wouldn't you get the "ortho" look shooting pan film with a deep green
>filter?
>Sorry if I missed earlier comments in this thread.
>Phil Stiles

  Previous stuff snipped.

  Someone said that when Konica IR film was used without a filter the
results were the same as with ortho film.
  I haven't looked at the spectral curves for the Konica film but some IR
film has a hole in the green region. If red light is filtered out such film
would have a somewhat ortho sensitivity.

  To clarify (I hope), the spectral sensitivity of film depends on dyes
which are added near the end of the emulsion making process or, sometimes,
even after coating the emulsion.

  Silver halide itself is sensitive only to blue and ultra-violet light.
This sensitivity varies a little with the halide: silver chloride is least
extended toward green, silver Iodide is the most extended toward green, but
none is actually green sensitive.

  Orthochromatic film has dyes added which extend its color sensitivity
toward green. These films are not sensititive to red or yellow light. When
orthochromatic films were widely made there was some choice as to how far
toward yellow the sensitivity went.

  Other dyes extend the sensitivity to include red light, such films are
called Panchromatic. There are variations in how far into the red the film
is sensitive, and how sensitive they are for red light compared to other
colors. At one time Kodak classified pan films as Type A, B, or C,
depending on the degree of red sensitivity. Most modern pan films would be
classified as Type B, Technical Pan is Class C (extended in both spectrum
and sensitivity).

  By proper choice of sensititizing dyes film can be made sensitive to
Infra-Red light. Again, the degree of sensitivity varies. Kodak High Speed
Infrared has sensitivity which extends well into the IR range. It has
continuous spectral sensitivity for shorter wavelengths but there is a dip
in the green region. Konica film is less extended but will get the effect
of IR when photographing landscapes (light decidous trees, dark evergreen
trees).

  The dyes used for panchromatic sensitizing tend to have a dip in the
green region. Some dyes used to sensitize scientific IR film, which extends
very far into the IR, have little or no sensitivity in the green region but
they don't need it: the film is always used with filters which remove
visible light from the exposing light.

  I am skeptical that Konica IR film would duplicate the old orthochromatic
films when used without a filter. It does have sensitivity in the visible
red region and, I suspect, in the green. So does Kodak High Speed I.R.

  A Cyan filter, used on pan film, would give somewhat similar results, but
I doubt that the actual character of ortho film can be exactly duplicated
this way.

  Of course, no pan or IR film will allow development under a red
safelight, standard practice with ortho.
----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002
From: Robert Marvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Efke film website

--
Greg Hubbard wrote:
Take note of this webaddress for EFKE low-speed monochrome.  It is =
apparently based on mid-century German thick-emulsion films.

www.consumptive.org/photosource/efke.html

I agree with this site that Efke film is exceptional.Interestingly,
the Adox KB/R 14 and 17 that Efke KB/R25 and 50 are based on were
considered to be the epitome of modern THIN emulsion films when I
first used them in the '50s.

Bob Marvin

from rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 
From: "Fox, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Efke film in 120 available here in US

FYI -- there's a place in Kansas that stocks the Efke films, including the
25, 50, and 100 speed films in 120.

http://www.jandcphoto.com/pages/662787/index.htm?gen_time=1030458785266

Cost is $2.89 per roll in 120 for Efke 25. I haven't used any of this but
I'm about to buy some and try. Anyone out there used Efke 25 in their
Rolleiflex? Looks like a great film to experiment with!

R.J.

From rollei mailing list:
Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Duonars and Ilford 3200

[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
> Nice low light film.  I expose at an EI of 1250, develop in Rodinal 1+25
> for 11 minutes.  I quite like this film for interior casual people shots.
>
> Richard

I have fallen in love with this film since it came out.  I usually shoot it
in 120 size in my 6008i and the negs are gorgeous.  In 35mm I use it when I
want the grain.  I usually rate it at the full 3200 speed and process it in
Ilford's DD-X developer.  I use the developer one-shot in my JOBO ATL-1000
and it produces exceptionally clean negatives with a good tonal range.

Here's a shot done with Delta 3200 film:

http://www.bobshell.com/cgi/show_gallery.pl?gallery=04&number=1

I like the fact that I can shoot hand held in relatively dim light and still
stop down enough for some depth of field.

Bob

From leica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 07 Sep 2002
From: Nathan Wajsman [email protected]
Subject: Re: Maco 820 IR (WAS:[Leica] Nathan's PAW 36: Infrared neighbourhood)

Thanks, Don!

Maco 820 IR has become my favorite IR film. It is less extreme than Kodak's HIE
but much more IR than the Konica or Ilford SFX. As the name implies, it is
sensitive up to 820 nm, compared to around 750 nm for the Konica and Ilford
films and 900 or so for HIE (the visible spectrum stops around 700 nm as far as
I know). Heliopan lables their filters with the wavelength at which they kick
in, so that the 695 cuts off all wavelengths below 695 nm. Hence, it is quite
well suited to get a good IR effect out of the Maco film. I have also tried
with a regular deep red filter (#29) but that one is weaker. With the 695
filter I rate the Maco at EI=12.

Nathan
...

From: [email protected] (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Thank God for digital
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
wrote:

>Fuji is projecting and saying they'll be making film for another 25 years,
>hence their investments structure. Kodak just built a new film prodn
>plant. There are even third world film makers in China, E. Europe, who
>are likely to produce for the market as well

However - I seem to remember reading that China's Lucky film
factory(s) are going through a significant downsizing. I'll probably
have the last, unexposed roll of Luckypan on the planet in a few more
years. :)

JL

Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Favorte B&W films for Hasselblad and MF work

Very Few people are aware of the fact that there are two different kinds of
Tri-X film; Tri-XPan  Professional has an ASA of 320 and Tri-X Pan has an ASA
of 400.  I have found the first one (ASA 320) to be far superior.  It has
better shadow tones and you can touch up the negative on both sides.

T-Max and the new Portra B&W stuff reminds me of the old fashioned  fax machine
paper.  Remember that slimy fax paper that used to come in a roll?  The  eye
can't grip the image on those films.  Tri-X ASA 320 and Plus-X are the films
I suggest.

New Guy to the group
John Holbrook
http://www.holbrookphoto.com/

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: New IR films from Maco
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002

Had a look at the Maco booth at Photokina today and brought back a few
new products:

Maco Cube 400: a ISO 400 b/w film going up to 730 nm

Maco IR 750c: similar to 820c but limited to 750 nm, only available as
35 mm

Maco TSX 730c: high-sensitivity film for traffic surveillance, i.e.
probably similar to SFX 200

More as soon as I'll be able to try them, hopefully next weekend.

Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 127 E6 is back and is actually good!
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002

[email protected] wrote:
> A friend of mine told me they had heard there was an outfit in Italy
> that's makes E6.

That would be Ferrania. They used to make the European "Scotch" films
and dozens of drugstore house brands. Lately, they've returned to
selling at least some of their produce under their own name.

Given that Maco are the German distributors of Ferrania film products,
this whole theory sounds quite likely.

Here's the page on Ferrania's website about their slide film:

http://www.ferraniait.com/Solutions/photography/slidefilm.htm

Cheers,
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher  -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: 127 E6 is back and is actually good!
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002

Ferrania is the last manufacturer of 126 film, so it would make sense.
Maco is probably sourcing the reels from Efke and buying the 127 film from
Ferrania.  All I've got to say is that the film is good, and I'm glad to
see my Komaflex finally earning it's keep.

From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF Cartridge film - ever attempted
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 

>But then MF people wouldn't feel like they were special.
>
>"Bob Salomon" [email protected] wrote 
>>  [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> > Has there ever been an attempt to develop a medium format cartridge type
>> > film like 126/110/APS?  And why didn't 70mm ever catch on?

It did for quite a few years but it had a problem.  The rools in the
cassette were 15' long!

The military ised 70mm cassettes in the Graflex Combat Graphic 70
which looked like a huge Contax.  The kit came with a telephoto, 100mm
and wide angle lens and a hard case.  It shot 6x9cm images.

>> You mean other then 70mm in cartridges?

Many MF cameras had 70mm cassette backs (My RB-67 does) and 70mm
non-perferated roll film is still made I believe for the "school
cameras".  There is also 90mm backs (I have one) that shoots a 3.5x5
inch neg.  I put 100' rolls in mine and draged the old speed graphic
around the mountains with the Keith back attached for years.

THOM

>>
>> Not too many emulsion choices and lots of processing problems if one
>> doesn't have a cine machine.
>>
>> --
>> HP Marketing Corp. www.hpmarketingcorp.com Ansmann, Braun, Combina,
>> DF, Ergorest, Gepe, Gepe-Pro, Giottos, Heliopan, Kaiser, Kopho, Linhof,
>> Novoflex, Rimowa, Rodenstock, Sirostar, Tetenal ink Jet and cloths,
>> VR Frames, Vue-All archival products, Wista, ZTS

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: film speed test question
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 

"Scott Holt" [email protected] wrote 
> Real simple question concerning determining film speed - if I were to
> determine a speed for particular film/developer using, say, 120 format would
> that speed be the same for all formats of the same film (using the same
> developer, of course). I realize some films that are very different share
> similar names (Tri-X for example); I'm talking about "the same film". In
> this particular case, I'm starting to use HP-5 with DD-X. I use it in 35mm,
> 120, and 4x5 and its a bit more convenient for me to make 8-12 shots needed
> by my testing method using 120 or 35mm.
>
> (on the other end of this question - yes, I know the development times are
> going to be different).
>
> thanks,
> Scott

  If we consider speed only as it is measured by the ISO
method there is no difference, assuming the same emulsion is
coated on all sizes. The ISO method specifies a certain
range of exposure and the range of densities to be produced
from them, in other words its a fixed contrast test. If the
contrast used in practice is different than that in the
standard the speed ISO speed is no longer valid. The current
ISO method does not specify a standard developer, although
past versions of the standard did. Currently, the tester can
use any developer but it must be specified in the results
along with the speed.

  The ISO method contrast is somewhat on the high side,
about what is needed for diffused light sources. When
contrast is adjusted for printing on normal grade paper
using a condenser enlarger the development must be reduced
so the effective film speed is about 3/4 stop less than the
ISO speed. Also, when using the different developer the
speed can vary over about a 1.5 stop range.

  In addition, the ISO standard has no safety factor and
does not take into account the shape of the "toe" of the
curve. For this reason many times shooting as a somewhat
slower speed than given by the ISO test may result in better
shadow detail.

  Some manufacturers seem to use the same or at least very
similar emulsion for all formats of film sold under the same
name.

  The developing time can be affected by factors like the
overcoating. This is a layer of hard gelatin coated over the
emulsion to protect it from abrasion and in some cases to
provide a retouching surface. The developer must penetrate
through this layer (or layers) so they can cause the
developing time to vary.

  Sometimes manufacturers coat somewhat different emulsions
films of different sizes but the same name. Sometimes these
are very close, sometimes, as in the case of Kodak Plus-X
and Tri-X the roll and sheet versions are completely
different emulsions with very different tonal rendition.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Mulitple Pops & Reciprocity Failure
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2002

"Jeff Novick" [email protected] wrote...
> Can anyone tell me when reciprosity failure might be a factor when doing
> mulitple pops with flash units? I'm shooting with APX100 and have not needed
> more than 8 pops so far in doing closeup work. Ambient light doesn't seem to
> be a problem as it is either too dim or completely dark when I shoot.
>
> Jeff

 Not very specific information I'm afraid. The effect is
known as the intermittancy effect. It is dependant on film
characteristics, on the number of individual exposures,  on
the duration of the individual exposures and the ratio of
the duration to the interval between them. The effect is of
less exposure than one would get from a single exposure of
the same total light quantity. Short duration with long
interval results in the greatest loss of relative exposure.
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 02 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Reformulated Tri-X?

There is no change in the Tri-X emulsion. It is the same. They have a new
manufacturing plant for Tri-X. That's all. New packaging from the new
plant. But the new packaged old emulsion Tri-X isn't out yet.

Kodak re-tested Tri-X and made some minuscule changes in their starting
point developing recommendations. That's all. Not many folks use the Kodak
recommended times anyway. It is only a ballpark figure at best.

When you buy the new packaging, don't look at the package. Just use the
film as you always have and it will work exactly as before. Because it IS
as before.

It is amazing how rumors get built up and massaged in all directions.

:-)

Jim
...

Date: Thu, 07 Nov 2002 
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re: c'mon - back to the H1

you wrote:
>Half a stop? Are you shooting on a slide film?

Never for weddings. I know what Kodak & Fuji say about exposure latitude,
but I also know what my lab says. My lab doesn't care what brand film I
shoot. All they want to do is give me the best prints they can and to do so
they've demonstrated to me that underexposure of color negative film give
lousy results. Most color negative film can sustain a full stop
overexposure better than half a stop underexposure.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 
From: Ken Martin [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 vs. A24

Tom:
   Common wisdom would make you think that the price per frame of size 220
film would be lower that the price per frame for 120.  Unfortunately that is
not always the case.  As an example and looking at the B&H web site, the
price that I pay for Fuji Velvia is 24 cents per frame for 120 size film and
27 cents per frame for 220 size film.  I think the advantage to the A24 back
is simply that you do not have to reload as often.  For some types of
photography that can be a critical element.

   Now if you want to depart from the design parameters of the backs there
are some ways that you can make some of the older backs do double duty.  I
have an older C12 back that I routinely use 120 and 220 in. Used they are
rather inexpensive used.   They take a little longer to load that the A12
but do the job.

Ken Martin

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 
From: Rei Shinozuka [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 vs. A24

i think there is only one silver-based 400 ASA film available in 220:
HP5+ (which fortunately i love), two near-misses would be Tri-X
professional at 320 ASA, and one chromognic, Kodak T400CN.  there are
two 100 ASA range films, plux-X and FP4.  regular tri-x is not available
in 220.

note that none of the new tabular B&W films are available in 220.
Delta 400 was for a while, but they pulled it a year or so ago.

fortunately, i'm very happy with the traditional emulsions, so the
availability does not crimp my style at all.

-rei

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
To: [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] A12 vs. A24

The other 220 B&W film is the chromogenic Portra 400 B&W. It prints
spectacularly. But like you, I prefer the old fashioned stuff and therefore
my B&W is mostly 120 film. Agfa APX, Efke, real Tri-X, etc.

Jim

From: [email protected] (Steve Gombosi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Film Identification
Date: 8 Nov 2002

Fred  wrote:
> "Ray Paseur [email protected] wrote:
>
>>A while back somebody posted a link to a table of Fuji Film identification
>>codes, such as "astia" = RAP, etc.
>>
>>Can someone please repost the link?

It's not an official, manufacturer's site, but:

http://www.brucebarrett.com/large_format/Film_Chart.html

>>Anybody know what Fujichrome RFP is?  I couldn't find it in the Fuji web
>>site.

>RFP means Fujichrome Professional Daylight an older film not in their
>current lineup

More specifically, it's ISO 50 professional ("P") daylight-balanced
reversal ("R") film.

Steve

From: "Roland" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: What film do you use for landscapes?
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003

This is an interesting web page, comparing the main types of film for
landscape work. I was so impressed, I bookmarked it.
http://web.infinito.it/utenti/m/maremmaphoto/filmtest.eng.html

[email protected]
> I have used Velvia some, is it the best? I bought some E100VS for the
> first time, is this comparable to Velvia.
>
> Cody H.

From: Douglas A. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: New Kodak Film
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002

While we're all busy proclaiming the death of film, Kodak is
introducing two new Professional films. Portra UC (Ultra Color) and
Trix TX 400 Black and White film. I just received a flyer from Kodak
Professional for 2 free rolls of each to try. Fuji just revamped NPH
recently, so I guess film isn't entirely dead. You can get info on the
free offer here.

www.kodak.com/go/freeportratrix

From: "Ken Hart" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Old film - where to send?
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003

"Lyle Gordon" [email protected] wrote 
> www.rockymountainfilm.com
>
> [email protected] wrote 
> > I just yanked a roll of Exposed Superlumichrome (I'm assuming pre-WWII)
> > from an antique camera I just aquired.  I believe there's someone out
> > there that specializes in processing this sort of stuff.  It might have
> > some interesting images on it.  Does anyone have the contact
> > information?

Try Greg Miller at Film Rescue International, Indian Head, SK, Canada, (306)
695-2300.

I have no knowledge of his work (except for the Christmas photo of his
curling team on the ice rink!), but I have talked with him, and he seems to
know his business.
--
Ken Hart
kwhart@aec,nu

Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 
To: [email protected]
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Kodak's new HD film

Matt Denton said:
>Anyone try Kodak's new 'High Definition' 400 print film yet? I've
>been complaining about their lousy Max film so long I was actually
>surprised to see it arrive unannounced on the market... The Fuji 400
>I've been using is OK, just wondering if anyone has tried and can
>offer an opinion on the HD stuff....

It's rebadged Royal Gold 400.

From nikon mailing list:
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2003 
From: "Roland Vink" [email protected]
Subject: New films from Fuji

After all the talk about digital and G lenses, here is some good news
for analogue film users:

New Velvia 100 with RMS granularity of 8
New Asitia 100 with RMS granularity of 7
New Superia X-TRA 400 with finest granularity in 400 ISO film
New Superia 1600

Read about it here
http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1045687367.html

The new Velvia looks especially promising. The old 50 speed film is
already my favorite. My FE2 is itching to try the new stuff!

From: Philippe Monnoyer Hello Folks,

As the kodak SO132 film is discontinued, I searched for a film that
would allow us to enlarge negatives in one easy step. I tested "new"
direct duplicating emulsions. They are interesting for contact printing
in palladium, platinum, gold, cyano, etc etc.

I published the results in
http://users.skynet.be/philippe.monnoyer/sensitometry
Have a look, it's worth it.

Philippe

Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fuji MS 100/1000 chrome

I have shot quite a bit of that in 35 mm size. Unfortunately, I think
Fuji has discontinued making this film. If you can find some of this,
the results are fairly nice, and medium contrast. I have pushed it to
ISO 1000, and also had some processed at lower ISO settings. The grain
increases as you push the film more, though the contrast change little,
and the colours remain fairly consistent.

I have not found one film to replace this, though Kodak E200 provides
good results when pushed. The Kodak film tends towards warmer images
than the Fuji, and may require more colour correction under low light
conditions. Another option is Kodak P1600 set at ISO 800, which is very
similar in grain, though slightly higher contrast than Fujichrome.

I never had the opportunity to use it in my MF gear. Mostly, I
considered this a low light film. I used it for concert and band stage
photography, an environment well suited to the film. Since I do little
of that now, when those situations occur, I often use tungsten film
instead.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

From: [email protected] (FLEXARET2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Feb 2003 
Subject: Re: Fuji MS 100/1000 chrome

still have a batch of it in my freezer. It is a good saturated ISO 100
film when exposed and processed normally, with good color rendition and
low grain. I have yet to have it pushed to higher speeds.

I have had some cross-processed in C-41 as a negative and it has some
interesting weird yellow/green color when printed.

You can still get lots of it low-priced from Freestyle in LA for
only 50 cents per 120 roll.

- Sam Sherman

Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 
From: Lassi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: numbers of lost images - film vs. digital? Re: my first prints

dr bob wrote:

> My major concern is that in 50 years there may be no light sensitive paper
> to print upon. There will always be chemicals and optics.

I've heard about an invention that uses an inkjet printer, but uses
"ink" made of normal b/w chemicals. You let the printer splatter
necessary amounts of photosensitive chemical, develope, and fix it. The
result is like a chemical print. The main difference is that it can be
done in broad daylight, because the shades of gray are made by rationing
the "ink". In fact you *must* do it in light, to expose the ink.

-- Lassi

From: Mark Kronquist [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 3/22/2003 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Tri-X 120 film

Lee Yan Zhan at [email protected] wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Does anyone knows where I can get Tri-X 120 film? I like to buy some in
> bulk and ship to Singapore. Apparently, Kodak has stopped supplying the
> local distributors....
>
> Many Thanks,
> Lee
>

Suburban Photo 503 643 6651 they even have 220 OLD Tri X

Blue Moon Camera 503 978 0333 [email protected]

Citizens Photo 503 232 8501 [email protected]

Glazers 206 624 1112

Tymers 360 696 0859

Hope this helps Mark

From: Anne Bellenger [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 3/22/2003 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Tri-X 120 film

Lee,

Hunt's has Tri-X 120 for $2-something a roll. I got 6 rolls from
them last year.
I just checked their web site and they do have it now.
http://huntsphotoandvideo.com/site/home.htm

Anne
Avon Park FL

From: Leonard Evens [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Question about 120 film(s).
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2003

Philip Kline wrote:
> I recently acquired a very nice Yashica 124g that appears to be in
> good working condition. I stopped by my local Ritz and bought a roll
> of 120 Kodak film so I could try it out. The box the film came in
> says something about being negative film. My question is what is
> negative film as opposed to say film for prints? When I get it
> developed will I get a stack of negatives or can I get prints too?
> Also, should I take it back and get film for prints?

Maybe you already know as much as you want to, but let me explain why
there are two different kinds of color film. The dyes used in color
film (and prints) have deficiencies. Transparency or reversal or slide
film is designed to produce slides which are projected in a darkened
room on a screen or viewed directly by transmitted light. In such
circumstances, the human visual system adjusts so that the dye
deficiencies don't play a serious role. But when you make a print from
a transparency, you do encounter such problems. Color negative film has
a dye added to the film---giving it that orange cast---which compensates
for the failures of the dyes in the three emulsions, so it can produce
more accurate color in prints. In addition, since slide film is
designed for direct viewing, the film is designed to have quite a high
dynamic range, which is difficult or impossible to catch in a print by
conventional darkroom printing techniques. Since color negative film is
designed specifically for printing, it lowers the contrast so as to
include as much as possible of the dynamic range in the film and allow
it to be printed.

Normally one should use color negative film if one intends to make
prints. But many photographers use only slide film because they submit
their pictures to editors and other end users who want slides they can
examine directly rather than prints. Using digital techniques, it is
possible to make reasonable reproductions from slides, but it is still
easier if one uses color negative film.

--
Leonard Evens [email protected] 

From Leica Topica Mailing list:
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 
From: "Christopher Williams" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kodak High Definition Film

Kodak has to change film names at least every year or so it seems. High
Definition 400 was 400 MAX. It's supposed to be "improved". As a guy that
develops film at a lab, I can tell you it's just as bad as MAX. Grainy, too
hard to color correct, and not the sharpest film. Kodak's advertisements
will tell you different of course.

Supra is discontinued. Now it's Royal Supra and comes only in 200 and 400
speeds.

Comparing NPH to this film is like comparing a Ford to a BMW. NPH is in a
different class. You would have to compare VC or NC to NPH to even get
close.

Dumping billions into digital gear can make you forget how to make a good
film.

Chris
New Orleans

From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 
From: "Peter Blaise Monahon" [email protected]
Subject: Reference FAQ - Film Speed

Occasionally, we have an exploratory discussion of why we each change
the rated film speed and/or push or pull our film. I found this and
I share it for our reading pleasure, a FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
about Film Speed from Kodak at

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/service/faqs/faq0010.shtml#q1 

 I hope it helps proivide a base reference for some of the terms we use when
discussing this dynamic topic.

From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Saturation: The REAL Definition
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 

Alan Browne [email protected] wrote
>> Perhaps you mean divided by?

After thinking about this (something I have difficulty doing in the
early morning) I realized "divided" would be silly.

> ...in addition to my prev post, of course Velvia has a lower spectral
> sensitivity .... it is a slower film.... the units are energy, so many
> ergs per cm^2. A slower film would HAVE to be less responsive.
>
> So maybe the equation should be, for a given wavelength:
> 100/ISO * SS * SDD

That makes even more sense than your post from yesterday. However
Agfa Vista & Optima 400 have lower spectral sensitivity than the 200.
For every theory, there is an empirical observation that contradicts it
;-) although in this case the datasheets could be wrong.

Actually the shoulder of the RGB or CMY characteristic curves often
corresponds with contrast and/or saturation. Some exceptions are
Reala, which is highly saturated although relatively low contrast,
and Ultra 100, which is supposedly high saturation (although neither
Jeannie G. nor I really found it so) but has characteristic curves
similar to Vista 100.

Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 
From: Robert Feinman [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Saturation: The REAL Definition

I'm not sure if this is what you are trying to understand, but..
Saturation is a measurement of how much white is mixed in with
a given color. A color with 100% saturation would be a pure
spectral color such as seen through a prism when looking at
the sun or the light from a laser.
Photo dyes have various degrees of spectral impurities and thus
allow colors other than the pure one to pass lowering the saturation.
If you look at the ICC color horseshoe that some companies show
for their products a pure color would be along the edges.
So the saturation of a color film depends mostly on the types
of dyes the manufacturer uses. This would be very hard to figure
out from the spectral curves. That's why some show the ICC gamut
display for certain products.
In addition to saturation, color has the dimensions of hue and
lightness or brightness. Hue is what we usually think of as the
"color" and brightness is a measure of how much black is mixed
with the color.

Color needs a three dimensional display to really see all the
characteristics at once.

Kevin Neilson wrote:
> Even though explanations of saturation have been abundant, I've still seen
> no definition that pleases me. Every one I've seen has been well-intended
> but very vague, such as "it means more vivid colors". So I've decided to
> rephrase the question such that the answer will satisfy me:
>
> "You are given the charts showing the characteristic curves (showing
> cyan-magenta-yellow desnsity vs. log exposure) for two different films, let
> us say Velvia and Provia. The charts are not labeled as to the film type.
> How you do determine which chart belongs to the Velvia (the more
> saturated)?"
>
> -Kevin
--
Robert D Feinman
[email protected]
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramas and Photoshop Tips
http://robertdfeinman.com

From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 13 Apr 2003 
From: Dave Rodgers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] OT - film resolving power

Chris,

You said that "T-Max 100 is well known for producing less than sharp
looking prints." That's a very general statement which I think is untrue. I
read your follow up comments. Shouldn't spend too much time on the matter?
What better to spend time on that film choices!

As far as magazine reviews, I don't trust them to be all that objective.
Terms like "slightly unsharp edges"...compared to what. Could be magspeak
for "vendor doesn't purchase enough advertising space" or "I can't find
anything else wrong with this film, but I've got to think of something."
Who knows, maybe they tried a high solvent developer for kicks.

For several years I used the Delta films, D100/D400. Great films, both.
When Ilford came out with the new and improved D400, or 400 Delta, or
whatever, I was confused by the change in developing times so I moved back
to what I'd shot years ago, TMX/TMY. Ironically, the only reason I moved
away from the Kodak films was that I kept reading bad things about TMY.
During my Delta phase, every time I made prints from old TMY negs I
realized that it had performed pretty darn well. And my TMX prints always
displayed stunning acutance.

I personally find the Kodak films to be slightly faster than the Ilford
films. Plus the only developer I use anymore for 35mm is XTOL. Anchell &
Troop state that "for tabular films, XTOL is the solvent developer of
choice." But they also state that "XTOL is effectively a nonsolvent
developer, but because of its careful buffering, grain is still fine." IOW,
fine grain plus acutance.

Unsharpness is not a problem with any of the modern 100 speed films.
They'll all react differently in different developers, so when someone
complains about lack acutance I want to know more. Especially when a
subjective view conflicts with a lot of objective data.

"Well known" to me implies fact or truth, commonly accepted knowledge. I
still don't buy that it's well know that TMX results in less than sharp
looking prints. But I do appreciate your response.

DaveR

BTW, I always try and use the slowest films possible, not because of grain
or accutance, but because I like shooting a wide apertures.

 you wrote:
>Dave,
>
>as I said before, one should not spend too much time on this matter, but I
>feel obliged to reply.
>
>My statement below is based on my looking at prints that I have made. Part
>of the judgement
>is no doubt subjective. And perhaps the way I work makes my prints from
>TMX come out less sharp than my prints from Delta 100 negatives. Perhaps
>it works the other way round for you. Therefore I have tried to find some
>third party opinions that substantiate my statement.
>
>I only buy one magazine dealing with the technical side of
>photography, (the French) RTponses Photo. The October 2002 had a test of
>the seven most popular 35 mm b+w films. The following are all the negative
>parts of the technical summaries (i. e. excluding comments like
>'expensive' or 'not widely available'- Acros: slow; APX: does not handle
>overexposure well; TMX: slightly unsharp edges; Forte: grainy.
>
>I am also on the Pure Silver list. I quote a comment from some of the most
>knowledgeable list members (hope he does not mind being quoted).
>[email protected] says: TMX .... very high resolving power, yet it looks
>unsharp in some popular developers, even if diluted.
>
>I can't find the reference right now, but I recall Richard Knoppow saying
>on the Pure Silver list that the fine grain of TMX prevents the prints
>from looking sharp.
>
>My personal feeling is that they are all correct in their statements. But
>I admit that b+w films are an emotional choice. This probably influences
>my (our?)judgement. Blocked highlights do not. I have a very accurate
>thermometer, a stop watch and a densiometer, so (for most of the time)
>exposure and development do not cause blocked highlights
>
>Chris
>
>>Chris
>>
>>you wrote:
>>>T-Max 100 is well known for producing less than sharp looking prints.
>>
>>My jaw just about hit the floor in disbelief when I read this. It flies
>>completely in the face of my personal experience, and those of many other
>>photographers. Some people don't like TMAX, because if not developed
>>properly highlights can block up in a hurry (this is more of a problem
>>with TMax400). But when it comes to sharp prints, nothing I know beats
>>T-Max100`
>>
>>Please substantiate your comment.
>>
>>DaveR
>--
>Christer Almqvist
>D 20255 Hamburg and / or
>F 50590 RegnTville sur Mer

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Chinese non-anti-halation film
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]

 Jay Y Javier wrote:
> Even for colour, with Lucky color film.

I had some rolls of Lucky color film. My lab said they'd hate me
forever if I ever brought any more of it in for processing and printing.

Bob

From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 
From: "Merritt, Robert" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [SLRMan] Refrigeration of film

I have actually used unrefrigerated consumer film a couple or so years past
its expiration date with no problems, even no color shifts. I understand
that Kodak and Fuji both are on record that their film should be fine for up
to a year after the expiration date without refrigeration.

Nick

From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Apr 2003 
Subject: Re: best slow films discontinued per Zeiss Re: lenses getting worse?

>basically, the over 200 lpmm in actual real world tests run by zeiss
>are all discontinued - ektar 25 color and agfa 25 and ortho 25 films ;-(

Actually, I did a test to compare the differences between 6x9 and 35mm using
VPS and Ektar 25. The enlargment factor between the films is about 2.2 times.

I Used VPS in a 6x9 camera with a 105 lens and Ektar 25 in a 35mm camera with a
50mm lens. The 8x12 prints showed no real difference at all in image quality,
resolution or tone.

Again this holds to the three factors in image quality detail. 

1 Resolution
2 Focal Length
3 Distance.

Since both images were shot at the exact same distance at the exact same time.
the only real difference between the cameras is Focal Length and Resolution.

The 6x9 negative had a 110 mm focal length with a resolution of about 60 l/mm
typical of VPS. In the 35mm image, a 50mm lens is used but the resolution of
Ektar 25 is much higher at 140 l/mm.

So the bottom line ended up to be, the focal length of the 6x9 image was about
2.2 times greater but the resolution of the 35mm image was also 2.2 times
greater. Ended up to be a wash with these two examples.

Larry

From: Jim Brick [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 5/9/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Spot Metering

I too use a Polaroid back occasionally. Never for metering purposes.
Sometimes for compositional checks. Sometimes to show a client what they
might be getting.

Some folks think Polaroid is down and out. But I came across this:

=====================================================
HOT OFF THE PRESS...
=====================================================

'Best ever,' promises rejuvenated Polaroid

Despite its troubles in the recent past, Polaroid has bounced back with
a new film, a new creative techniques guide, and a permanent 20x24 inch
camera exclusively for the use of UK photographers.

Following its earlier announcement (BJP, 05 March), Polaroid's new Type
690 instant colour print film has arrived in the UK and is now appearing on
dealers' shelves on a stock rotation basis, replacing Type 679. Users who are
keen to test the emulsion now can do so via a free offer that is currently
bundling a 10-sheet pack with a miniature bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey.

=====================================================

Now that's an offer!

:-)

Jim

From: Scott Davis [[email protected]] 
Sent: Tue 5/13/2003 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Cirkut Film...Emergency!!!

I have just been informed that EK has discontinued 8" Cirkut film in B/W. 
Does anyone know where I can get more ASAP?! 

Scott

[Ed. note: what happened to Kodachrome, a sad tale of a great film ;-(   
From topica leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 19 May 2003 
From: Ted Grant [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re K64 processing

I thought I'd get in on this Kodachrome discussion only because having used
it for many years on commercial and magazine work I was a died in the wool
user and Ektachrome for pushed available light assignments where the light
was usually atrocious.

When I moved to the west coast of Canada there was a Kodak lab in Vancouver
with beautiful same day service if your film was in early morning.. The big
facility in Toronto gave similar service.

The Vancouver lab was closed due to the usual environmental concerns. That's
when west coast films started to go to Toronto for what was still not bad...
out Monday ... back Thursday and many of us Kodachrome lovers learned to
live with it.

Then Toronto was shut down and all KR film went south of the boarder to the
US some place. Quality began to slip as film came back with scratches and
other weird unforeseen markings and service time including scratches became
intolerable when dealing with our "paying customers" who were under
production times.

At the same time KODAK began improving their E6 films along with other
manufacturers to the point where we could shoot E6, have smashing good
slides in about 2 hours and it came down to "Who the hell needs to put up
with this lousy Kodachrome service crap" when we can get on the spot
procesing. Not to mention cost increases and delays for KR..

So in my company Kodachrome went the way of the dodo bird. Do I srill like
KR films? Damn right and if I could get the kind of service I can with E6
I'd go back in the blink of an eye.... but days and weeks waiting for
results that clients now have learned can be had in hours, at worse 24.
Wouldn't wait for results, nor would I, to receive scratched, funny looking
procesing marks.

As far as I'm concerened Kodachrome died several years ago when "Kodak labs
were sold off to independents" or whatever deal Kodak made.

And I beleive there's been some comments about "pushing Kodachrome?" Yep you
can do that, or could have done it. Of course a hefty extra cost. During
the Pan American Games in Indiananpolis '87 where Kodak first began offering
to push ASA 200 to 500 for accredited photog use with indoor sports it
worked beautifully.

Then came the '88 Winter and Summer Olympics where it was offered again to
accredited photographers "at no charge" as was the case with all films used
for the Games. However, when the Games were over and we wished to use it @
asa 500 the Kodak labs charged "$50.00 per roll" for pushing! Pushing was
over .. period.

It's a beautiful fim alright, but not that beautiful to put up with the
"procesing garbage that goes with it."

I also see some of you folks can turn your KR around in a few days and
that's cool for you. But in the real world of earning your keep through
photography, photo-editors and ad deadlines don't wait for no man nor lab.
Besides, whether some like it or not, without question digital is making
such inroads in the commercial world it just means another nail in the
coffin for Kodachrome.

And no I'm not saying it'll completely disappear. But at the moment each
passing day as other films improve and the electronic monster digital
continues raising it's wonderous head, surely the headstone for KR is being
cut as we speak.
ted

Samples from the Women in Medicine project:
http://www.sandycarterphotography.com/WIMcollagePage.htm

Ted Grant Photography Limited
www.islandnet.com/~tedgrant

From: Jim Brick [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 5/30/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: [HUG] Velvia 100F

Brentley and I got some samples of new Fuji films. FP-100C (glossy color)
Polaroid film and some of the new Velvia 100F (120 size.) I'm anxious to
use the Velvia and will comment on it when I have some images. It is
supposed to have more true colors than Velvia 50 and be sharper. Sort of
like Provia 100F with saturated colors.

Jim

From: Andy Buck [[email protected]] 
Sent: Tue 5/27/2003 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: Cirkut film sources

I, too, ordered Forte film through Eight Elm Photo - http://www.eightelmphoto.com - in Toronto. 
I dealt with Michael Lee there. It took about 6-8 weeks. I ordered 8 100' rolls of 5" wide ISO 
400 B&W, their minimum. It cost 1/2 what the US distributor quoted me and 1/3 what Ilford wanted. 
Andy

James Young [email protected] wrote: 
Hi Scott
When I was getting my #16 cirkut going I looked at a bunch of 
choices for film and finally contacted the canadian distributer for 
Forte film, which is EIGHT ELM PHOTO- In toronto if I remember 
correctly.They were cheaper than the us outlet. They gave me a great 
price on film. The minimum order was 4 100 foot rolls, which is 
pretty good. I ended up paying less per roll in materials ($20.00) 

From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film Latitude - getting my head around it.
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 

"Chris Wilkins" [email protected] a Tcrit...
> What does density mean?

Density is the degree to which film blocks light. The density range is the
ratio between the transparency of clear film and the opacity of the darkest
silver or dye deposit that the developed film can hold.

In the case of B&W film, with metallic silver deposits, the density range
can be very high indeed, up to 10,000:1 or more (although it is usually
closer to 500:1 or 1000:1 for most films). Slide film also has a very large
density range. Color negative film has much less range. You can see this
yourself by comparing color negative film with black-and-white negatives or
transparencies.

> Could tell me what you get with more or less
> density please?

The greater the density range on the film, the greater the range of
individually-distinguishable tones that you can theoretically distinguish on
the film. Thus, slide and B&W film provide better resolution of subtle
midtones than color negative film, because they can record larger density
differences to represent these midtones.

From: C J D [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film Latitude - getting my head around it.
Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 

Mxsmanic wrote:
...
> In the case of B&W film, with metallic silver deposits, the density range
> can be very high indeed, up to 10,000:1 or more (although it is usually
> closer to 500:1 or 1000:1 for most films). Slide film also has a very large
> density range. Color negative film has much less range. You can see this
> yourself by comparing color negative film with black-and-white negatives or
> transparencies.

A small technical point: Your use of the term 'density' in your examples is
incorrect. The ratio of incident to transmitted light through the negative is
called 'opacity', and depending on the film characteristics may range up to
10,000:1 as you say.

However, 'density' is defined as the logarithm of opacity, and in the example of
opacity = 10,000:1, density = 4.0.

ColinD

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Are used medium format camera prices dropping?
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 

Q.G. de Bakker wrote:
> > Did they test this using lenses or some scientific device that has
> > absolutely nothing to do with photography?
>
> They used microscope lenses capable of producing more than 1000 lp/mm
> images.

I tell a lie. That's what Fleischer/Mueller says manufacturers of film use
to test their products.

Zeiss, he says, used typical photographic conditions: sunlight outdoors;
exposures using normal camera shutters; focussing done using normal
focussing devices found on cameras; normal film processing in a regular lab;
and using normal photo lenses, made by Zeiss, of course. The only thing not
found in normal photographic practice was the Carl Zeiss Stereomicroscope SV
11 Apo they used to examine the film.

Fleischer/Mueller mentioned how manufacturers of film say (as one reason why
they don't make more high resolution films) they don't believe that lenses
are good enough to show what a high resolution film is capable of.
Fleischer/Mueller, being a Zeiss man, of course rebukes by pointing to the
1996 Photokina Zeiss exhibition, in which they displayed photos, made from
Ektar 25 (capable of 200 lp/mm) negatives, and made using Zeiss lenses, that
show lenses in fact can use the film's high resolution. Every last bit of
it, in fact.

He also mentions that they (Zeiss) are considering staging another such
demonstration. When they do, David should make sure he attends. ;-)

From: "pioe[rmv]" "pioe[rmv]"@coldsiberia.org
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Film versus 6 MP digital
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 

Christoph Breitkopf wrote:
> According to the Fujifilm data sheets:
> Granularity RMS Resolution
> Contrast 1.6:1 Contrast 1000:1
> Superia 200 4 50 l/mm 125 l/mm
> Provia 100 F 8 60 l/mm 140 l/mm
> So Fuji at least get more resolution from their slide film.

It is not surprising that Provia _100_ resolves more than Superia
_200_. But I still maintain that negative film is sharper.

There are others who have come to the same conclusion about the
sharpness of negative and positive films:
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF1A.html

What would have happened if Steve Hoffmann had compared to Superia 100
instead of Provia?
--
Per Inge Oestmoen, Norway
http://www.coldsiberia.org/

From: Bob Adler [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 6/6/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Velvia 100F - Results?

Here's one man's opinion:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia100f.shtml

From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Film Age?

[email protected] writes:

What is the lifetime of a roll of film, past the expiration date,
stored properly or improperly? 

It can be years. There was a story in Popular Photography a few years ago
pertaining to this. In New York City, they were demolishing a building and a
worker found an small package stuck inside a mailing chute. The shipping
address was a Kodak processing site and he dropped it off at the local Post Office. 
The package only had a three cent stamp on it, but the PO sent it on its way.
Since Kodak was still at the same location, they got it and processed the
film. It was full of pictures from WWII. They came out fine.

I've used film that has been stored in my freezer for 20 years. But the
higher the ISO and the higher the temp and humidity, the faster the film
deteriorates. TMAX 3200 goes bad even is a freezer. If film is stored in a barn, that
means that for 3 months of the year it's frozen and for 6 more months it's
pretty cool. So your results don't surprise me.

From: Jim Brick [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 6/7/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: RE: [HUG] Velvia 100F - Results?

Bob Adler wrote:

>Here's one man's opinion:
>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/velvia100f.shtml

And you can't just look at the pictures, you have to read the text since
the films look different (as film) than a scanned image looks.

I looked at a lot of side-by-side comparisons, 50 vs 100, and I like them
both. They are very close, the 100F being a little more pure.

Jim

From hasselblad mailing list:
From: Oliver Bryk [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 6/13/2003
To: Hasselblad Users Group 
Subject: [HUG] Film longevity

In 1988 I shot many rolls of Kodachrome during a six week trek in the
western Himal and the Karakoram ranges. For about 10 days we hiked in the
monsoon (imagine a hot firehose drenching). When I had the films processed
after my return, every exposed roll that had been subjected to high humidity
and heat had shifted toward green. The films that were not exposed until we
were in dry Pakistan were not so affected.

Oliver Bryk

From: Henry Posner [[email protected]] 
Sent: Fri 6/13/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: [HUG] Re: film in the oven

you wrote:
>A year or so ago, Ctein did an article in Photo Techniques where he found
>that film is much less sensitive to heat than was previously thought.

With color neg film, you do more damage to the image with half-a-stop of
underexposure, than with a little temperature.
-- -

regards,
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: $2 "coke bottle lens" on scanners vs. Zeiss glass & film
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 

"Bob Monaghan" [email protected] wrote:
> I wonder how much the "optics" in the typical scanner cost? Most seem to
> be about $2 mfgers cost items (granted, the scanners probably cost $50 to
> make for a $300 retail scanner ($150 wholesale, $75 importer..), little
> more than an uncoated cylindrical lens.

If you insist on buying a cheap scanner, why should you have a problem with
cheap optics?

See http://homepage.mac.com/anton/NikonTango/

It looks to me that the Nikon is getting slightly more detail, at a cost of
slightly more noise, than the Tango.

> this "coke bottle lens" on the scanner is what is limiting us, as noted
> ;-) Folks spend kilobucks on zeiss lenses in MF, then scan the film with a
> $2 piece of bottle glass ;-)

Huh? The only "cheap" scanners for MF are the flatbeds, and they're well
known to be poor.

The main glitch in the film scanner universe seems to be that most 35mm
scanners use a highly collimated light source and aggravate grain in
negatives. The Multi Pro users have figured out how to diffuse the light
source, and the Nikon 8000 is less harsh to start with.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: This May Depend on WHICH Kodachrome...
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 

Steve Gombosi wrote:

> >The original Kodachrome was introduced in the
> >early 40's, I believe.

Actually, the first and original 'Kodachrome' film was introduced in 1914.
It was not the Mannes and Godowsky film, but a two (!) colour subtractive
colour transparency film, made by exposing two B&W negatives, one through a
green filter, the other through a red filter. The negatives were developed,
bleached, and then dyed in complementary colours, and finally attached face
to face on a piece of glass.

This thing was invented by John Capstaff. His work on colour photography was
noticed by Eastman's talent scouts, and he was subsequently persuaded to go
and work for Kodak in Rochester.

;-)

From: "Ed Senior" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: This May Depend on WHICH Kodachrome...
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 

Not all Kodachromes were/are created equal.

This is my short-form Kodachrome history,
which I believe to be substantially correct.
(Big-time film historians may pick some nits.)

The original Kodachrome was introduced in the
early 40's, I believe. I know I have some 1943
Kodachromes that are awesome... they look like
they were shot yesterday. (Longevity is one of
Kodachrome's OUTSTANDING attributes that
doesn't get enough credit.) I believe that stuff
was ASA 10.

At some point, I'm going to guess early 60's,
Kodachrome was replaced by Kodachrome II,
ASA 25. This was the die-for stuff, the best
color film I've ever seen. Great, wonderful,
perfect, if you could live with the speed.

Then came the sad day that Kodachrome II was
replaced by Kodachrome 25 and 64... completely
different stuff. I'm going to guess late 70's or
early 80's. Many photographers frantically bought
up remaining stocks of K-II, and froze it.

Although Kodak presented the K-25 and K-64 as
"new and improved," only the "new" was correct.
The stuff still had fine grain, but the color was
all over the place. I especially hated the cyan skies.
And the K-64 was too contrasty for good results in
direct sun.

Rumour had it that the real reason for the change
was that K-II processing presented some intractible
pollution problems at the processing plants, and that
K-25/64 was formulated to solve those problems.

I limped along with the K-25 in those days, cursing
the cyan skies, because I wanted fine grain.

Now that I've seen the new generation(s) of E-6
transparency films, I'm no longer interested in K-25.
The E-6's are now remarkably fine grained for their
speeds, and the colors are quite pleasing.

But I wouldn't bet the farm that E-6 longevity has
been substantially improved. So if I get any great
E-6 shots, I plan to scan 'em while they're fresh.

Oh sigh... Kodachrome II... those were the days...

|:-(

From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: new velvia, 17mm disposable.. Re: Lenses
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003 

"Bob Monaghan" [email protected] wrote
> first reports on the velvia 100f are very encouraging; finer grain than
> the old slower velvia (if that's possible? ;-)

Easily possible. Velvia 50 was significantly grainier than Provia, to the
point that I never got around to figuring out its color properties since the
grain made it not acceptable given that Provia was available.

> and better color balance with more red, less green relative response...

The Japanese rags are reporting that Velvia 100 (not Velvia 100F) is the
winner in the color area: lovely whites and reds, and it'll almost do the
Velvia 50 superduper green thing if you underexpose it 2/3 stops. I suspect,
though, that the grain won't be as nice as either Provia or Astia 100F.

If I catch up on my work and the sun comes out, I'll go shoot some of the
new Astia 100F. The advertised slightly wider latitude and finer grain (vs.
Provia 100F) make it quite attractive, although I wonder how I'll like the
colors...

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sharpness of slide vs. print film
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 

Christoph Breitkopf [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Where did you find this datasheet? The one on the Fujifilm UK site
>> still shows sharpness falling below 100% around 20, maybe 19 cyles/mm.
>> Personally I didn't much like 3-layer Superia 100, and like 4-layer
>> Superia 100 even less. Odd because Reala is such a great film...
>
> http://www.fujifilm.com/JSP/fuji/epartners/bin/Superia100.pdf
>
> I was actually trying to find the 'professional data guide' which
> includes all films, but the Fuji site defeated me.

Thanks for following up, Chris.

The above datasheet is for the previous 3-layer emulsion, CN-10 or -11,
I don't remember the code and can't find a backup copy. Here is the only
backup copy I found of the films.htm chart:

RMS resolution sharp latitude blue green red
Fuji NewSuperia 100 4.0 63 125 20 -2/+2 3.1 +c 2.7 2.4
Fuji Superia 100 4.0 63 125 15 -2/+2 3.1 2.7 2.3

This shows that the new 4-lcayer CN-12 has higher sharpness and greater
red saturation, but the same high- and low-contrast resolution. To find
the datasheet for CN-12, follow the Fujifilm link on Creekin's films.htm
page, click on Films, datasheets, etc.

From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 
From: "davek57" [email protected]
Subject: Kodak film still made in USA

Let me clear this up early:

Kodak is moving its film finishing activity to Mexico and China.
That's the point at which film is slitted, sprocket holes are
punched, and the film is spooled, canistered, and boxed. 
Manufacturing of film still takes place in Rochester NY and other
Kodak plants worldwide.

If you're buying gray market film, this is no big deal. If you use
pro film for its freshness, I'd buy film made in your home country.

- David K.

From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fuji Film's U.S. Operations (Addendum)

[email protected] writes:
 Fuji doesn't make any film in the USA. 

Fuji Photo Film, Inc. began manufacturing operations in South Carolina in
1988, when the company announced the construction of its first U.S. factory for
the production of pre-sensitized plates for the graphic arts market. The
Greenwood manufacturing complex is currently comprised of eight high technology
manufacturing plants, the Greenwood Research Laboratories, and the largest
Fujifilm distribution center in the world. The 1,600 Associates employed at the
500-acre complex currently manufacture digital and conventional pre-sensitized
plates and film for the graphic arts market, 35mm color film and photographic
paper, QuickSnap one-time-use recyclable cameras, DLTtape?IV computer data
storage media, VHS-format videotape for the consumer and duplication markets, and
digital and conventional medical imaging products.

http://www.fujimed.com/news/press_SouthCarolina.html

From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Death of film?

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Death of film?

> What do they do in that big facility in Greemwood, South Carolina?
>
> Roland F. Harriston

They cut and package paper and film which is shipped in from Japan in master
rolls.

Ferrania does the same in their facility in Minnesota.

Bob

From: [email protected] (Film Shooter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format..
Subject: ONLINE FILM GUIDE for 35mm and MF cameras
Date: 16 Aug 2003

Here is a site that gives some good info about selecting appropriate
film for the right subject and conditions:

http://www.cybamall.com/filmguide

Check it out. It has some good examples.

From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Teleconverter whith Hasselblad C 80 mm f/2.8
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2003 

"Randall Ainsworth" [email protected] wrote 
> > Forget the lens, most films won't stand up to 22x28 from MF, especially if
> > viewed at 11x14 viewing distances.
>
> I have a 30x40 in the other room made from a 6x7 neg

A 14x enlargement. The 300 dpi A4s I've made from crops from my best 4000
dpi Provia scans are grossly soft compared to A4s from the whole 645 frame,
but grain isn't a problem, and if you get back to even 1/2 the diagonal (24"
or so) from the 30x40 it'll look great (assuming your 6x7 is about as good
as my Mamiya 55mm lens).

> and routinely made 20x24's from Hasselblad with no problem.

Yes. 11x enlargements are quite within reason. But you don't crop 11x14
sections from 30x40 6x7 (or 22x28 6x6) prints and compare those 11x14s,
viewed at normal reading distances, to 11x14s from full frame negatives.

The implicit claim that was made was that, for example, for 11x14s, cropping
would be better than using a cheap teleconverter, and that's seriously
problematic, simply from film considerations.

Most films are down to 30% MTF at 50 lp/mm, and that means a 14x enlargement
is 3.8 lp/mm at 30%, whereas a 7x enlargement is 4 lp/mm at close to 100%
MTF. That's a noticeable difference if you get anywhere near the prints. 3.8
lp/mm at 30% is nowhere near good enough for what most people consider
"photographic quality".

So if your converter+lens is over 30% MTF at 28 lp/mm, it'll look better at
11x14 than a theoretically perfect lens of 1/2 the focal length cropped.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003

[email protected] (Bob Monaghan) wrote:
>Interesting statistics, Larry, thanks!
>
>But who is using so much 70mm film? Military users? Imax theatres and
>other 70mm projectors? The big users locally are a few wedding types ;-)

I the military I used the 70mm Combat Graphic which looked like a huge
Contax! I loved it with the 6x9 format.

I use 70mm alot when I need to. The Keith back for my RB-67 saves me
tons of time on trips and is cheaper per shot than 120/220. I also
have the Keith back for 90mm roll film and that saves tons of bulk and
weight over 4x5" cut film holders and is cheaper per shot.

Many of the 6x6 SLR cameras had backs for the 15' rolls.

THOM

>Are these figures worldwide, or just the USA for kodak? (source?) I am
>assuming this is square feet of film, not linear feet?
>
>If only 4% of kodak's film production is still films for amateur and pro
>photographer use, including I assume color print, slides, B&W, specialty
>films, then film is a MUCH more endangered species than I thought! ;-(
>
>thanks for sharing this info!
>
>regards bobm

From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2003 

"Norman Worth" [email protected] wrote:
>I don't know if it was part of the 6%, but aerial photography remains a big
>consumer of 70mm film. Several military cameras use it, although many are
>being replaced by digital systems. The motion picture industry also still
>uses a large amount.

Mostly unperferated stuff. Australia's RF-111's use 5" and 70mm film
and the US "Red Haze" system uses unperforated 70mm. I know because
I've processed and printed miles of it.

THOM

From contax mailing list:
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 
Subject: Re: [Contax] decisions, decisions, decisions
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Steve Woolfenden wrote:
> I think Bob has already disproven this theory , but by way of support I am
> hearing about a lot of guys locally who eschew MF in favour of 35mm style
> digital cameras . At the moment they are getting much the same resolution
> and CCD size as they would from an expensive digital MF back.........
> I also think the future of MF will , to an extent at least , be determined
> by whether digital technology continues its quest for more pixels/bigger
> sensors or just says stuff it , why bother when we can blow stuff up using
> all sorts of zooty software that gives excellent results with no
> discernable loss of quality .......

I think medium format film will disappear sooner than any other film
type. It is more complex and costly to make, for one thing. I think
35mm film has a few years left before it begins to disappear. We'll
see a narrowing range of film types, of course, as we are already
seeing. Large format seems to still have some "legs" and has actually
shown some small growth recently.

Bob

From: "Victor Bazarov" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: MF film to go first? Re: A Prediction that Film will Survive
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003

"Nick Zentena" [email protected] wrote...
> [...]
> One thing is 120 really the same stock that 35 or LF is on?

No. 120 has the thinner base than 135 and LF.

From: "Neil Gould" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: scanners - good enough?
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 

Recently, Bob Monaghan  posted:

> I doubt there will be much of an improvement past 8000 dpi with
> current films, though it is interesting to speculate if FUJI and
> others may come out with films enhanced for scanning and sharpening
> rather than standard chemical printing? ;-)

Now, there's an idea worth exploring. I've long suspected that many of the
artifacts that accompany scanning of film is the poorly matched objectives
of each media. The scanners we've been discussing are best suited to
capturing 2D images for printing on 2D media, while film and chemical
prints are both 3D media. It would be intriguing to see if a "2D film"
could be created that would have better properties for scanning.

Regards, and wishing all a safe and happy holiday season,

Neil

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 
From: Matt Denton [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] 50 times better pictures? 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
Leopoldo - I have a later Hawkeye Flash Model that only takes 620, I've 
heard from some other people that earlier Hawkeyes actually fit 120 spools 
and Kodak discovered this and revised the camera so they wouldn't. That way 
people would be forced to buy Kodak's own 620 film! So it's hit-or-miss I 
think when trying 120 in the Hawkeye. I forgot to make a note of that on my 
page, I'll do that right now...! 

Matt 

From: Gregory Blank [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2003
...
Even though the Government uses digital for certain applications like
imaging from the Hubble telescope, I spoke to a guy from the Goddard
space center a while back and he stated that alot of the most important
imagery is transfered to C41 negative material for later reference.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

From: Nick Zentena [email protected]
Subject: Re: "620" Film Questions
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 

Vince [email protected] wrote:
> I guess Kodak sees things otherwise, the company has marketing experts who know
> which films sell.
>
> Certain films have stayed around many years after they stopped making cameras
> for them. Case in point a friend give me a 616 camera, back around 1975. The
> film was still being made, but only in KODACOLOR (remember that name?) as were
> other old sizes.

J&C announced 116 film-)) And they show some 620 film.

Nick

From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 22 Dec 2003 
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?

> "Filmed in 70mm..." Sound familiar?

Actually 65mm or about as wide as 120/620 film. The release prints are 70mm. 

Larry

From: Nick Zentena [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2003 

Bob Monaghan [email protected] wrote:
> Based on the 85% of motion picture film usage is 700 million (square?)
> feet, somebody is shooting 50 million (square) feet of 70mm still film,
> while the entire amateur/pro still film using community only uses 33
> million (square) feet of filmstocks, if I interpret these figures right?

Not shooting if I understand the movie process right. The way I understand
it 70mm films are shot on something like 60[or slightly more]mm film. The
print is then put on 70mm. The difference being the sound track. How many
prints are made per movie?

Nick

From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Dec 2003 
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?

>I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a
>few lines down.)

Kodak sells more 70mm by sq ft then any other still flim combined. Which is 6%
of total film production. 

The make up is about this per year.

Motion picture film 85% 700 million ft
Still 10% with 6% 70mm
Medical Xrays 3%
Industrial Glass Plates and so on 2%

Larry

From: [email protected] (Thor Lancelot Simon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: When did Sheet Film replace Glass Plates?
Date: 15 Dec 2003 

Richard Knoppow [email protected] wrote:
>
>"sympatico.ca" [email protected] wrote ...
>> not sure when it replaced it, but Kodak only very recently
>finally stopped
>> making plate film (T-Max) I think
>>
> The current data sheet for T-Max films still lists the
>glass plate. However, I couldn't find the listing of other
>glass plates on the Kodak site. Either they've been
>discontinued or they are well hidden. Kodak customer service
>could give a definitive answer but they will not be
>available until Monday (this is late Friday). There is no
>notice anywere of the discontinuance of any of the glass
>plates.

Do you have the paper Kodak product catalog? If you do,
there should be a note near the listing for Tmax 100 glass
plates stating that Kodak will coat any current-production
emulsion onto plates "subject to minimum order size
constraints". I noticed this while browsing the catalog
many years ago and was quite surprised!
--
Thor Lancelot Simon [email protected]

From: Phil Stripling [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Kodak offer: buy 5 rolls, get 5 free
Date: 11 Dec 2003

American Photo, Jan/Feb 2004 has an ad from Kodak. buy five rolls of E100G
or E100GX and mail in a coupon with flaps from the cartons and get five
rolls free. See http://www.kodak.com/bo/buy5get5e
for the form -- this link downloads the .pdf coupon. The offer is limited
to specified 35mm films.
--
Philip Stripling 

From: "Richard Knoppow" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Old school color imaging!
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 

"Tom" tom@localhost wrote ...
> Wasn't the oridginal Kodachrome a negative film?
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
> >
> > This may well be. Technicolor was looking for a method of
> > eliminating the color separation cameras for years. They tried
> > stripping film and other methods but did not have success. They
> > certainly used low contrast Kodachrome for parts of several
> > productions but I don't know about Wizard of Oz specifically.
> > There is a book by Dr. Roderick Ryan of Kodak describing many color
> > processes used in motion pictures. He mentions specifically at least
> > some of the productions using Kodachrome. This is a hard book to come
> > by but the Los Angeles public library has a copy so I will have to
> > find time to look this up.

Kodak used the trade names Kodachrome and Kodacolor long
before the familiar films. The original Kodachrome was a
two-color "Pinatype" process using differentially hardened
emulsions coated on both sides of the support and dyed. The
original Kodacolor was a lenticular process of the type
often called Keller-Dorian. This was a reversal process.

Lenticular processes require only standard panchromatic B&W
emulsions but have several drawbacks. One is the need for a
very fast lens to have the necessary size for the special
striped filter. Out of focus areas of Lenticular color
pictures tend to ahve color fringes. Another problem is
duplicating. Paramount Pictures worked with Kodak to achieve
a practical lenticular method for theatrical motion pictures
during the early 1930's. They were not successful. The
original Kodachrome existed in the 1920's, Kodacolor in the
early 1930's. Both had been discontinued for some time
before the multi-layer films currently made under those
names appeared.

Good sources of information about both of the early processes are:

_A History of Color Photography_ J.S.Friedman, reprinted by
the Focal Press

_A History of Three Color Photography_ E.J.Wall, also
reprinted by Focal Press.

Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]

End of Page

What Films Do Serious Amateur & Pro Photographers Use?

Kodak Professional Roll Films

Discontinued films are:

Medium Format 120 Rollfilms
Film	ISO	1000:1 lpm	1.6:1 lpm	Type
Agfachrome Pro RSX 50	50	125	55	color slide
Agfachrome Pro RSX 100	100	125	50	color slide
Agfachrome Pro RSX 200	200	110	50	color slide
Fujichrome Velvia	50	160	80	color slide
Fujichrome Astia 100	100	135	55	color slide
Fujichrome Provia 100	100	140	60	color slide
Fujichrome Provia 400	400	125	40	color slide
Fujichrome 64T (tungsten)	64	125	50	color slide
Fujichrome MS 100/1000	100-1000	135	55	color slide

Agfacolor Ultra 50	50	140	50	color print
Agfacolor Optima 100	100	140	50	color print
Agfacolor Portrait 160	160	150	60	color print
Agfacolor Optima 200	200	130	45	color print
Agfacolor Optima 400	400	100	50	color print
Fujicolor NPS 160	160	125	63	color print
Fujicolor NPL 160 (tungsten)	160	125	63	color print
Fujicolor Prof 400 NPH	400	100	50	color print
Fujicolor NHGII 800	800	100	50	color print
Konica Impresa 50	50	130	80	color print
Konica SR-G 160	160	100	50	color print

Agfapan APX 25	25	200	n/a	B&W
Agfapan APX 100	100	150	n/a	B&W
Agfapan APX 400	400	110	n/a	B&W
Agfa Scala 200X (slides)	200	120	55	B&W
Agfa Ortho 25 (no red..)	25	350	n/a	B&W
Kodak T-Max 100	100	200	63	B&W
Kodak T-max 400	400	125	50	B&W
Kodak Tech Pan 6415	25	320	100	B&W