Switch to English Language Passer en langue franšaise Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,240   Posts: 1,660,100   Online: 863
      
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 48910111213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 151
  1. #131

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,768
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    My helicopter must have flown over Toms head

    Yes actually shot a roll of it in Maine and sent it to Praus to develop, it came back blank, I asked him and he said often the transparencies that are very old just don't work, sadly, tonight as a matter of fact, I went to grab that roll for re-rolling and realized it was E-4.... DOH!! neither of us caught that sadly.... I saw ektachrome and just assumed E-6, and you know what they about assuming...

    Wish I could have seen how it came out, the base is clean and clear, no fog.
    Well it could have been prehardened and then crossed in C41 or cold processed in C41.
    Old transparency is risky...

  2. #132
    Truzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,416
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I do wish some film producers would take the "impossible sales model" of selling inferior film stating that it's inferior, and saying this is it so far, if you buy this, we will make improvements. Instead of scrapping whole batches, I know this sounds counter-intuitive but for "impossible" emulsions like IR, I think selling a faulty IR "Lomo" film would still be better than throwing it out completely, even if it's lower priced, better to make some money than a total loss, and as long as you state the quality ahead if time, expectations would be set properly.
    I think the "Impossible sales model" of alpha- and beta-level products is a workable idea. However, I don't think I'd want that from Ilford, and I don't think Ilford would either. They would not want to knowingly release an inferior product; and who could blame them? Their reputation is on the line.
    The only way for Ilford to do it is the "right" way, and that is cost prohibitive at this time.

    A "new" company with no reputation to hurt/live up to may be a different story.

    I don't know if I agree that SFX could/should be dropped in favor of a deeper IR film. I've not used SFX much, and only as a regular B&W film, but there is something about it - especially how it renders skin tones - that I find very compelling.
    Truzi

  3. #133
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,462
    Images
    65
    My terse comments are a pale echo of Simon's full answer to the question. It is not going to be made.

    Also, unfortunately, digital cameras take rather credible IR photos in B&W and color. I say credible because they are in use by the military and spy organizations using special sensors which we do not have. Our cameras can do it though. I have some quite nice digital IR done just fooling around in the back yard. So, the feeling of many is "ho hum, I don't need a film". Actually, for best results, they do!

    PE

  4. #134

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    ....Also, unfortunately, digital cameras take rather credible IR photos in B&W and color........
    I converted my old, digital Canon G2 to an IR-only camera by removing the blue filter and substituting a clear piece of glass of the same thickness. I've been astonished at the results, especially with B&W when using a 87C filter. I still have a few rolls of 35mm HIE in my freezer, but won't miss it when it's gone.

    Jim B.

  5. #135
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,462
    Images
    65
    However, HIE was false color which is unobtainable with a "civilian" digital camera.

    PE

  6. #136
    eddie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,641
    Images
    221
    I'm just grateful for the films, papers, and chemicals still available to me. Rather than ask companies to produce items they've deemed unfeasible, I'm perfectly happy to see them continuing to offer the fine items I need to follow my muse. I trust their ability to assess the marketplace, as it concerns the profitability of their products.

  7. #137

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by eddie View Post
    I'm just grateful for the films, papers, and chemicals still available to me. Rather than ask companies to produce items they've deemed unfeasible, I'm perfectly happy to see them continuing to offer the fine items I need to follow my muse. I trust their ability to assess the marketplace, as it concerns the profitability of their products.
    I was told we would not have to have reasonable discussions on this BBS. :-)

    Seriously, I think this is absolutely right, and it's worth remembering that this thread was launched (two years ago) with a really outstanding explanation from Simon of why Ilford did not find a "true" IR film feasible.

    On the other hand, some of his reasons, like the commitment to SFX, were specific to Ilford, and I don't think it's inappropriate or ungrateful for the ensuing discussion to explore what other alternatives might exist, especially with the demise of the unique IR820. I hope none of us are saying "pbbbtttth on Ilford for not doing it".

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  8. #138

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    And impressed you understand my stilted English.
    I may have been in international standards too long---even after looking back, nothing you said seems "stilted" compared to some of the things I'm used to decoding! :-)

    Today you could write to Adox though probably better if you had done it last year.
    I think Mirko actually discussed the IR possibilities a little around the time CHS II 100 was being launched. My memory may be failing me a little, but it seems like Adox had the sensible plan to worry about getting one "replacement" emulsion into the market first, seeing how the reaction went (especially considering the price rise), and then evaluating further possibilities. I would assume CHS II 50 and CHS II 25 would happen before any serious thought about niche emulsions like IR.

    Because commercial film manufacture is a volume batch process as the volume drops the selection will reduce.
    You'd think so, but in b&w we're actually a bit spoilt for choice compared to most historical moments. Mostly that's down to Ilford's extensive portfolio, but you could actually write Ilford out entirely and still have a reasonable range of films available except at the high- and low-speed extremes.

    Hell, if I'm not mistaken, even Kodak actually still offers almost as many "normal" b&w films now as they did in 1975. By my count they then had Pan-X, Verichrome Pan, Plus-X, and Tri-X, and I think that was it; their other emulsions were things like Tech Pan, ortho films, HIE, and so on.

    The films are like going up stairs the top step IR film. The IR was probably a military contract where the development was funded 100% by the customer with a long term production contract following, the commercial sales merely some jam on bread. This is what permitted the final step ( to IR) and spectral performance. Ditto for Kodak.
    I think we know this was true for Kodak, but Fotokemika? Operating out of the definitive non-aligned country, I'm not sure what large-scale high-tech military they would be supporting. (I guess the IR design could have come from Agfa, though.)

    Fuji are selling rebadged 200 ISO c41 very cheap. I don't use it but it must be hurting KA's sales.
    I'm not sure what the situation looks like in Europe, but over here it's long been unusual to see Fuji and Kodak C-41 films head to head---most consumer sources seem to stock one or the other. It seems like consumer C-41, except for disposable cameras, is on its last legs in any case.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  9. #139
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    24,462
    Images
    65
    Well, if it is going to be done, and Ilford is not the manufacturer, then Mirko will certainly be the one to do it and he will do it right! Of that I am sure.

    PE

  10. #140

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    338
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    However, HIE was false color which is unobtainable with a "civilian" digital camera......
    By HIE I was referring to the B&W IR film Kodak once made. EIR was the false color stuff they once produced.

    Jim B.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  Ś   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin