Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,498   Posts: 1,543,108   Online: 1061
      
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 37891011121314 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 140
  1. #121
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,312
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by jnanian View Post
    not being productive?
    considering people are paying 6$/sheet for film
    it seems that it is good to know the fine print, and seeing this is film never used for this purpose
    maybe normal- guarantees might not be the same ...
    not as naive as you, since i have been buying sheet film for 25 years and had troubles over that
    period with kodak.
    you actually think if the film is too curly and falls out of he holders kodak will refund the $$?

    poorly cut film, to thin film, problems unforseen that happen after delivery ..This would normally be guaranteed
    but because this is "special-request film" the normal might not apply...

    this is why im not buying this film, not because i dont want the look .. but because
    it is all hard sell wih no real answers aside from how it is special in 35mm and the last black and white emulsion made...

    most of what you post is opinion, not fact ...
    True, my opinion, I agree, but aesthetics is all objective of course, I can't be the only one who thinks it's a good film at the price they are asking, heck I saw a lot of people COMPLAINING that the special order wasn't offered in larger formats, and I don't mean 8x10 I mean 11x14 and 20x24 sizes... Haha imagine how much that would cost hah!

    You're right, it's a special order so things are different, but if you ask for 4x5 from kodak and they cut it the wrong size, obviously they would back it up, can you imagine the bad press if 300 LF photographers got stiffed, especially I'm sure a few are big shots (unlike me) so it wouldn't be good for kodak, and they've been doing this long enough to not screw it up.

    Trust me the letter from kodak was thorough, regarding their attempt at cutting, etc, if the cost goes over the $300 per box they will stop attempts and refund the money, period. So they will cut and test and cut and test until either they get it right or they run out of money.

    Kodak is not EFKE
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  2. #122
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    There are close to 300 LF photographers invested in this? That's pretty cool (even if I disagree with the price).
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #123
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,312
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    There are close to 300 LF photographers invested in this? That's pretty cool (even if I disagree with the price).
    Well, let's put it this way, as far as I know... The box count needed by kodak has always been 300 boxes ordered for a run, so even though the price changed, I'm under the impression the box count stayed the same, and so some ordered 5 and 10 boxes but I think most ordered 1 or 2 boxes. So it's not quite 300 individual photographers but in total 300 boxes ordered, still shows a big commitment from those that appreciate this film.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  4. #124

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,799
    Hi

    Id recommend 320 ISO 7 mins in Microphen @20C followed by three mins in Borax & dry with weight on bottom but it's not too curly.

    But will the rebates have normal cine nomenclature so you can tell it from the cine sprockets film?

    Noel

  5. #125
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,312
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    Hi

    Id recommend 320 ISO 7 mins in Microphen @20C followed by three mins in Borax & dry with weight on bottom but it's not too curly.

    But will the rebates have normal cine nomenclature so you can tell it from the cine sprockets film?

    Noel
    I don't know what it will say if anythjng, but I would guess it depends on the cost of the cutting, whether they will imprint anything, if they do it will say what other kodak sheet film says most likely, it won't have bar codes, but will probably say "Eastman Double-X" or something.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  6. #126

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    2,601
    Pan F stock would really be squirrely in sheet size. People put all kinds of things in sheet film holders, including thin lith film. But doing something
    voluntarily is a little different game than offering a product with your name on it that you know won't be ideal from a mechanical standpoint.
    Sheet films really need to be on some kind of stiff, dimensionally-stable stock of the correct thickness. Maybe this won't be a terrible issue with
    this anticipated Double-XX product, but once you move up to 8x10, you quickly learn to adapt either adhesive or vaccuum holders or the film
    with either potentially pop or just not hold focus due to not being flat. ... might not bother a contact printer who simply thinks an 8x10 is just
    a cool oversized Holga, but it would drive the rest of us crazy. ... But there are things you can do to help the film from popping in even 4x5
    holders, like acclimating your gear to the ambient working temperatures in winter before shooting it - just like you would with lenses to keep
    them from fogging up, or by making your own adhesive holders. But the the problem is minor in 4x5 compared to even bigger formats.

  7. #127
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    I...., whether they will imprint anything, if they do it will say what other kodak sheet film says most likely, it won't have bar codes, but will probably say "Eastman Double-X" or something.
    The bar codes and other makings are placed on Cine film at the same time it is perforated. many of the data fields are specific to movie use, such as documenting the Strip and master roll number and the perforating machine used to produce a given stand of film. every foot of 35mm also has a footage number which is useful to film editors to match scenes back to the actual camera negative. The system tries to make sure that these numbers don't repeat any more often than needed.

    For sheet film I would expect that you would only see a generic "Kodak" or perhaps Kodak Safety film, as they might have to do tooling to print anything else.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  8. #128
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,312
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by cmacd123 View Post
    The bar codes and other makings are placed on Cine film at the same time it is perforated. many of the data fields are specific to movie use, such as documenting the Strip and master roll number and the perforating machine used to produce a given stand of film. every foot of 35mm also has a footage number which is useful to film editors to match scenes back to the actual camera negative. The system tries to make sure that these numbers don't repeat any more often than needed.

    For sheet film I would expect that you would only see a generic "Kodak" or perhaps Kodak Safety film, as they might have to do tooling to print anything else.
    Well there's no tooling now, I believe it's all digital now, but really I think it's a price point. I do hope it says Double-X just because otherwise people might not believe me hah!
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  9. #129
    Chris Lange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    760
    Images
    33
    And if they don't?

    Who cares, you'll have the photograph you wanted, hopefully.
    See my work at my website CHRISTOPHER LANGE PHOTOGRAPHY

    or my snaps at my blog MINIMUM DENSITY
    --
    If you don't have it, then you don't have it.

  10. #130
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,025
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Well there's no tooling now, I believe it's all digital now,
    The machine that exposes the dots on the film is still "Tooling". It is Flexable tooling as it responds to software changes rather then Wrenches.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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