Ha, my 'dry processing' is actually 'dr5 processing' badly spellchecked by the pesky APUG spellchecker...!
Originally Posted by JMB
As for photos in my gallery, they are all positives (i.e.. slides), not prints. Scala was designed to be reversed, that is processed as a positive rather than a negative so I assumed that's what you wanted to use it for?? (Why use old Scala to be processed as negative then printed from if you can use many other, better and fresher films?)
Dr5 is a lab which chemically reverses b+w 'negative' film into b+w positives, i.e.. slides.
Hope this makes things clearer. (Although I often confuse myself :))
Well, my hunt for the "better" film (or at least the one that delivers what I am after) is still very much in progress. [And actually in reading about what others were doing with Scala, I was secretly wondering what was driving people to make slides]. In any case, I think that some of the prints that I have seen were prints made from negatively developed Scala, and some of these prints definitely displayed a unique, lively contrast and a splendid luminosity that is not so easily captured. I am developing pretty much into a three or four tone printer, I think. Hence, I became very interested in the strange but delightful properties of Scala.
Originally Posted by coigach
I am indeed concerned about Scala freshness. It seems that here in Germany the local sellers have figured out that the best way to deal with slow sales is to ignore expiration dates or issues. One seller here insists that his 20 ASA film is so slow that he does not have to indicate an expiration date at all. I think that means that he is selling a lot of old stock. And there is a lot of Scala around here with 2014 expiration dates. Well, I bought some today. Soon I will know.
There is only one original source of Scala film and that is AgfaPhoto. And even one of their competitors did not doubt their handling of that film.
Freezing film after manufacture is meanwhile not uncommon in the industry. Even Agfa did so and openly stated this. In first instance the time of freezing is not taken into account and the best-before date calculated from the date of thawing.
The film that I purchased has not arrived yet so I cannot examine the package closely for the moment, but the box appears to be marked simply "AGFA Scala 200X" and what appear to be notes about Scala processing. As far as I can tell there is no trademark AGFAPhoto. Do you know anything about sources marked in this fashion? I asked in an earlier post about the origins of the APX 100 that also is not not marked AGFAPhoto but is everywhere because I had assumed that someone had purchased a license to market it. And only God knows what is in the box. But this Scala thing is a little more confusing because there is a fair amount of it around, but it's not ubiquitous like the APX 100, and it indeed appears to be available only in limited quantities. Do you know anything about the authenticity, quality, or characteristics of the stuff simply marked "AGFA Scala 200X"? Thank you, and Merry Christmas!
Originally Posted by AgX
Agfa is the brand name of Agfa-Gevaert NV.
I have no doubt that in a box/cassette marked Agfa there is only film manufactured by Agfa. In whatever plant and in whatever time. (I leave aside the issue of two Agfa's existing pre-1964.)
AgfaPhoto is a designation used sparcely by Agfa since the late 90's or so to indicate their Consumer Branch.
However it was not used as brand.
When Agfa sold off that department in 2004 the new entity and its holding company got the name AgfaPhoto.
The life of that production company was only for some months, then it went mysteriously bancrupt. The holding company still exists.
It sold off remnants out of the film stock (either manufactured by Agfa or Agfa
Photo). The AgfaPhoto APX is out of that stock. When their colour film stock ended they rebranded films from other manufacturers.
AgfaPhoto of today is not a manufacturer. Furthermore they license the name AgfaPhoto for different kind of photo-related products.
Agfa which is still alive and huge and still owner of the brandname AgfaPhoto started a legal case against that rebranding with their name but lost the case.