Also, thanks for posting the link to that Flickr page, Ian.
What the hell is that about? Linking to a Flickr image to promote your product as if the image was made with it, without paying the owner of the image, or at least getting their permission?
Are you really not aware that you are using an all-rights-reserved image, and Flickr's server's, to advertise your product...also known as stealing...or are you just that morally bankrupt?
It sounds like you all need to attend ethics classes before you go any farther with your business...
I use some of your products, but this is a serious turn off. Who are the terrible people who are making these decisions and still have a job? Is the company being run by a mixture of clueless recent college graduates (you don't learn ethics in college) and evil old businessmen? It is so petty to steal someone's image and imply to customers that the image was made on your film (I would say "lie" rather than imply), when you could just spend a day shooting your own images. Ridiculously petty, morally rotten, and legally stupid. I hope that lady on Flickr, and Yahoo, sue your asses off, even if just on principal. I certainly would.
Now let's watch the scramble to pull the link, and the behind-the-scenes offers to the photographer ensue...
Dear Ian and 2F / 2F,
I think it is time to calm down, because there are some misunderstandings concerning the Rollei Redbird film and the links to flickr.
I've done a search for the postings in the german forums. These misunderstandings, especially of the named photographer on flickr, are based on wrong translations from German to English.
Nobody have written that these photos were made with the Rollei Redbird film. Neither the people from Rollei-Film nor other photographers.
In the discussions in German forums the question occured, what Redscale technology is and how it looks like. Because lots of "classical photographers" know anything about this technique.
And then it was answered that on flickr there are some groups dedicated to Redscale photography, with lots of pictures.
And it was said the series of that special photographer was a good example in general how Redscale works.
And it was said that these examples were made with a different film, not with Rollei Redbird. It was all correct.
Therefore there is no reason for bashing Rollei-Film.
And I don't understand the trouble about cross-processing. Cross-Processing has been made for decades now. It is established.
It is not an issue of translation at all. Stealing and lying are stealing and lying regardless of language. The link to Flickr to which Ian and I are referring was from the Maco Direct Website, with the line: "Click here for more pictures" (or maybe "more examples") on the link, and NO explanation that this is done using another film...hence the photographer's new caption on Flickr.
Originally Posted by Film-Niko
As you can see, the link and this phrase have ALREADY been pulled in the two hours since I made my prior post.
The link used to be on the image of the film cassette on this Web page: http://macodirect.de/rollei-redbird-...ml?language=en
The issue we have with the Crossbird should be extremely easy to understand for anybody who does not think that lying to the businesses we patronize is OK.
This could be perhaps an interesting information about the redscale technique:
We have received from several Japanese photographers the demand for the REDBIRD 400/27° as BULK FILM.
They justify this demand with the fact that the film is signed from the back, to be individual and independent.
Moreover, they want an attractive price, so it pays to these films to package itself.
We have not yet taken a decision.
If other users are interested in such a color film as 30.5 m (100 Feet) bulk film, then we could already produce
this film in September 2009.
You MUST be joking!
Originally Posted by Rollei-Film
I did not think that there was a way to make such a stupid product any more stupid...but you have found it!
The only thing unique about this film is that it is rolled into a cassette backwards...and people want it in BULK ROLLS???...so that the edge markings are not backwards???...so they can be "individual and independent"???...and, let me get this straight: You didn't laugh in their faces and tell them they were stupid F-ing idiots???...and you are not horribly embarrassed that such stupid F-ing idiots are your customers??????(!)
ROFLMFAO, as the phrase goes...
While strong opinions are welcome here, could we please dial back the drama a bit and express those opinions without the abusive language? Thanks.
I suspect a product like color neg film rolled backward with reverse edge printing isn't particularly marketed toward photographers with much of a technical background or history in film photography, so much as it's aimed at Lomography types who are coming to film photography from a different perspective and want to try something that seems funky and unusual to them. If it gets some young people to start experimenting with film, it doesn't seem like such a bad thing.
I can only see merit in 120 film flipped to redscale with a paper backing. Anything 35mm is just playing greedy on the uninformed.
Interesting, I never knew this existed, the red film thingy that is.
Shooting through the back door has never occurred to me, apart from the colour cast there could be a slight advantage with portraiture, any wrinkles will be smoothed out by the slight out of focus happening, I would assume. Skin tones would be a blast though:D
As for the E6 film running through a C41 bath, I'm not too sure some places would like that happening on the sly.
I worked with the bath controller on a large C41 dip-n-dunk machine. Sometimes we would have some serious amount of E6 going through the C41, I'm talking 4x5" and 8x10" sheets in numbers.
Always after these had been processed, the bath had to be stabilised again. Meaning we couldn't use the bath for serious C41 processing for about 1½ hours minimum. Only after a first control strip had gone through, been read, then the bath had some adjustments made, then another control strip through to check if the corrections brought the developer bath back to standard, could we put more film through.
This absolute correct bath was required as we used a lot of C41 Kodak Color Print film, to produce colour corrected transparencies for graphic reproduction.
So I know that cross processing will alter a bath somewhat, probably not too much with the odd roll, but if someone came in with 10 rolls in a small mini-lab the situation, it could be interesting.
So, if I do understand what has been told here, I can be certain that the Crossbird is a genuine colour-slide film in 35 mm format. So, it can be processed in E-6 to produce 'normal' colour transparencies suitable for projection, scanning and/or printing on Ilfochrome.
If this is true, than we can welcome an almost 'new' but normal colour-reversal film on the market with a EI of 200 ASA to be processed in E-6, right or wrong?
If right, than this is good news, any new film is good news...
Agreed. The market will determine the viability of this product, no need to invest so much emotion in it!
Originally Posted by David A. Goldfarb
Look, some time back I recall discussion about another product being a traffic surveillance film with nothing-special characteristics, though it was marketed as a shoot-at-any-ISO new superfilm. The market for the film eventually vanished and now it's gone. That's how these things work.
Notwithstanding overall decline in the total film sector, the market will ultimately reward real innovation and truthful advertising.