Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,935   Posts: 1,557,054   Online: 1255
      
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678
Results 71 to 77 of 77
  1. #71
    Petzi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Europe
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    857
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer
    OTOH, the Agfa color products developed during the war were quite good, and their line of products continued being an independant process and product line up until the point where they saw that they could never match the productivity made possible by the Kodak color couplers dispersed in oil drops. The fischer couplers limited coating speed and increased coating defects due to their chemical/physical properties.

    At that point, they abandoned their own technology and embraced Kodak technology and processes. From that point on, they didn't do any substantial color process development work. My statement above stands.

    PE
    Yeah but you can't blame Agfa for that. The primary reason as far as I can tell was compatibility. It was not desired to have different processes for Agfa film, Kodak film and everyone else. Were labs to maintain different lines of development for different film brands? That would have been a desaster. That's why Agfa and Fuji and all others adopted the Kodak process. They realized that with Kodak being such a strong force in the world wide market, it would result in a big problem for them if their product could not be developed in the exact same way as Kodak products.

    It would have required not only different chemicals, it would have come to the level where lab equipment manufacturers would have been required to make different machines suited for different processes resp. film types. A night mare. Imagine a lab has so many machines for Agfa and so many for Kodak, what would they have done if either had increased their market share at the cost of the other?

    Any changes to the process from that point on would have been close to impossible from a commercial point of view, because of backwards compatibility. It would have required changes at every lab in the world, and it would have required the support of the major film manufacturers. Not exactly a situation where you spend a lot of effort on R&D to make a change, especially when what you have seems viable?

  2. #72
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    I am curious, why oh why do these old aurguments keep getting drug up this last few days?!

    Geeze..

    Dave

  3. #73
    Bob F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,984
    Images
    19
    Quote Originally Posted by Satinsnow
    I am curious, why oh why do these old aurguments keep getting drug up this last few days?!

    Geeze..

    Dave
    The consequences of success . Mainly due to new users reading the archives I suspect - as appears to be the case here...

    Cheers, Bob.

  4. #74
    Curt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,553
    Images
    15
    Dave, it's the weather and SAD. By the way why would someone put a slide cover, the one inch square, in the center of a ground glass? It's cemented on. It is clear there also; is it to look at the back of the lens? The GG is an 8x10 and it was replaced with one of yours. Much better.
    Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand

  5. #75

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Texas
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,576
    Images
    27
    Know exactly what your are describing Curt, and that is really strange. Can not think of any reason to do that unless they used it somehow to line up the lens...strange.

    Quote Originally Posted by Curt
    Dave, it's the weather and SAD. By the way why would someone put a slide cover, the one inch square, in the center of a ground glass? It's cemented on. It is clear there also; is it to look at the back of the lens? The GG is an 8x10 and it was replaced with one of yours. Much better.
    Mike C

    Rambles

  6. #76
    Dave Parker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,049
    Quote Originally Posted by photomc
    Know exactly what your are describing Curt, and that is really strange. Can not think of any reason to do that unless they used it somehow to line up the lens...strange.

    The only thing I can think of, was someone was trying to make their own clear center spot focusing spot, I have actually had a few ask if I can do this..

    Dave

  7. #77
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,351
    Images
    20
    My 11x14" groundglass has a couple of these clear spots, in the center and toward the corner. They let you focus on the aerial image.
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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