How sensitive are films going to become to things other than light?
Well, how sensitive films are going to become is often discussed.
However, how sensible, to other influences than light, they are going to become is merely talked about. One of the few, or rather the only one to do so was the Gigabitfilm institute/company in Germany.
Just now this topic has reached Apug. And in a most recent publication in Germany this source gives a statement which only could be read as to keep the hands off a certain film in a certain cartridge.
Is this just the effect of some weird strategy within the industry? Or is this a real problem challenging the industry AND the user?
Up to now the 135-type film size was probably the most robust. (With only few exceptions like light-piping and storage issues for some rather irregular films.)
Are scenarios to fear that before processing the first strip of film has to be cut off because it has been touched with plain hands, otherwise resulting in contaminating the process? How much care, starting with selecting the right materials, has to be applied to processing equipment?
Is that one a single voice? Has the rest of the industry kept this issue in-house in order not to worry the user? Was one player negligently releasing foul material?
I’m curious how the industry will react on this issue.
Can you perhaps provide a clearer background to the question you are raising? I cannot understand the implied meaning of your post very well.
Using film since before it was hip.
"One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal
, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11
My APUG Portfolio
He means "sensitive" not sensible. Lichtempfindlich, gel?
I don't forsee any major problems even if films become much more light sensitive; people (like me!) already work with IR films and take special precautions. Blowing through the first frame is wise in general, for any roll of film, in my opinion. It has saved me many times, even with slow films.
I don't see much point in pushing the limit further in 135 format though. Looking at what is already commonly available in electronic capture, I think there's much more of a place for a superfast MF rollfilm. I have no idea who would pay the research price for beating back the fog boundary though.
P.S. If you mean enviro-sensitive, that is another topic...
Last edited by keithwms; 10-29-2007 at 09:31 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Sorry, it was not my intention to be cryptic.
I meant what I wrote: Sensible to anything other than radiation. Which you can read as chemical agents outside the processing contaminating halide films before or under processing. The crucial word is `contamination´, which I should have used at the beginning in my post above.
This is an issue put forward time ago in Germany by the Gigabitfilm institute. Seemingly getting not much attention. (Months ago I referred to that here at Apug.)
The basic idea is that emulsions being processed in the most advanced developers of today reaching for their limits as well most modern emulsions processed in rather middle of the road chemistry will be susceptible to agents they get in contact with during manufacture, handling, exposing and processing producing artefacts not seen (or overlooked) so far.
Meanwhile it is getting more attention in a German forum related to the release of the high-resolution film ATP-V1 and its custom chemistry. Yesterday a posting was publicised here at Apug giving via a reference to a German forum a warning for a certain film/cartridge combo.
(http://www.apug.org/forums/forum37/4...tml#post538251 /post 53)
Last edited by AgX; 10-29-2007 at 11:50 AM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: adding `exposing´
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Ah okay, bear in mind that in translation, sensible means (roughly) practical.
Yes you are right, as I just realized.
But please bear in mind that I'm reading and writing on a daily basis in three languages, with two of them giving `sensibel´ the intended meaning.
please change the thread-title to something making more sense...
I'd rather use the term susceptible
My response is a bit off topic, but some might find it interesting.
I was in high school during the period when nuclear weapons were actively being tested aboveground (45 years ago). Naturally, there was a lot of discussion about radioactive fallout from these tests and the potential hazards therefrom. I was a geek (still am, and damn proud of it), and decided to do a science project to test the hypothesis that it should be possible to detect the presence of fallout.
I had a good friend who was into photography (probably an early influence on me) who told me that the fastest film commercially available film at the time was Super HyPan. I wrapped sheets of this film in light-and weather-tight plastic, and left them outside for several weeks. The hypothesis was that if radioactive fallout was detectable, it should be possible to see evidence of that fallout in the form of areas of fogging on this film after it was processed.
I didn't have a darkroom, so I had to use the family bathroom (it was a one bathroom house, so I had to time my processing strategically), and based on recommendations from my friend, I used a monobath developer/fixer to process the film.
Results - I found no evidence of detectable fogging. So either the hypothesis was wrong, or else the sensitivity of the film was insufficient for the amount of radiation that was present.