Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,902   Posts: 1,521,109   Online: 1035
      
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 42
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Why bother with stuff that's already out of production? That's just a waste of time and resources. It won't be long before any remaining stocks are either outdated or just plain used up. Any data gathered for these materials isn't going to find much of a market.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by fschifano View Post
    Why bother with stuff that's already out of production? That's just a waste of time and resources. It won't be long before any remaining stocks are either outdated or just plain used up. Any data gathered for these materials isn't going to find much of a market.
    Hey, why don't you read my whole post. I think all of two people who have replied here actually read my post.

    Thanks.

    Rob, I'm probably not going to start on this until late spring. I'm doing preliminarily research right now. I'm apparantly not going to get any help from this forum, just griping, bitching, and moaning. Thanks for one of two positive responses.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Valley Stream, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,216
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    Hey, why don't you read my whole post.
    Your quote: "...and other defunct companies' products that are still available." I'm questioning why you would bother doing this with materials no longer in production? Otherwise, it's a good idea. Personally, I wouldn't be a customer but I'm sure there's a market for the data.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    I saw this study too. This "professional study" didn't even get the film-speeds right (there's no ISO 650). A lot of people called it into question (including me), it didn't have push or pull process characteristics, and it was by no means comprehensive. There were plenty of films not on the list.

    Guys, if you are all going to be this negative and not contribute any useful information whatsoever, just criticism, I'll take the fucking thread down and go elsewhere
    First, if your comment about responses being "negative" and "criticism" is intended to refer to the sub-thread to which you're replying, then IMHO you're way off base. I took film_guy's post as a pointer that was intended to be helpful. Certainly my own earlier reply was intended in that spirit. I'm a bit taken aback by your harsh response.

    More broadly, I don't perceive any of the posts in this thread as being negative to your basic concept. Some posts have pointed out problems you'll face and limitations of your study, but that's not being negative or critical, except in the sense of "constructive criticism." Your proposed project is huge, with lots of variables, most of which you can't control. Being aware of these issues, and choosing how to deal with them, is important from the outset. If you consider hearing about them up-front rather than after you've wasted scads of time "negative," then, to quote Inigo Montoya from The Princess Bride, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    258
    Quote Originally Posted by FilmIs4Ever View Post
    Guys, if you are all going to be this negative and not contribute any useful information whatsoever, just criticism, I'll take the fucking thread down and go elsewhere
    I'm sorry if you thought I was criticizing your thread. I wasn't being negative about your idea, but was trying to help give or get others to contribute some information which you may be able to start off or use for your research.

    And please, there's absolutely no need to curse or swear. We get enough of that kind of language and attitude from TV and movies, and I for one don't really want to have to read it on a photography forum.

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    I'm sorry if I came off as too strong as well. (I do not apologize for my profanity however). However, if you read my original thread, I was asking for advice from this forum as to what developers to use, and as to what companies besides the Ubiquitous Ilford, Kodak, and Fuji really made film. It's difficult to wade through all of the noise.

    I am going to use the most versatile system for this job, which made the Mamiya RB with interchangeable film backs a logical choice. I will have to use 35mm for certain films that aren't offered in MF, but the bulk of the test is to be on 120 for reasons of cost. This test's costs will probably spiral to over $2500 now that I've seen how expensive some of the registration charts are.

    There have been no recommendations made as to the developers I should use, processing technique preference, film manufacturers other tahn the "big three", or any positive, helpful, insightful posts made to this thread, so I might as well take it down.

    BTW< yes, I am going to do it in a scientific matter, that is indisputable in its validity. I thought that photographers would appreciate photographs other than MTF charts though> I guess I was wrong in trying to present information that is more pallettable to non-science-savy photographers.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,994
    phhhhhhhht.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    378
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianShaw View Post
    phhhhhhhht.
    Excuse me Brian, your post was not negative, nor was Photo Engineer's.


    Now, can anyone post some helpful information? There seems to be three different versions of Efke films, which are now ADOX. There seem to be two different versions of Bergger films.

    I am really having difficulty finding consensus on who makes what. I don't want to have to needlessly buy film that is merely repackaged.

    Then there are three different versions of D-76. . .

    I think we can all settle on D-76/ID-11 as a good developer, but what others?

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,916
    Images
    65
    I will be willing to help Karl. I know that his intentions are good. His language is not.

    PE

  10. #20

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    [QUOTE=FilmIs4Ever;553224]
    There have been no recommendations made as to the developers I should use, processing technique preference, film manufacturers other tahn the "big three", or any positive, helpful, insightful posts made to this thread, so I might as well take it down.
    Personally, I didn't comment on film developers simply because the range is so huge and I'm not sure what characteristics would be best to seek out. Popularity could be one factor, of course, but IMHO it'd be better (or at least important) to choose developers that would exercise films in various ways -- for instance, use an acutance developer, a fine-grain developer, and a speed-enhancing developer.

    As to films, AFAIK, you hit all the ones that are readily available in the US in your original post. You could always check the B&H and Freestyle Web sites to be sure, and ask about specifics if you're unsure of something. I believe that Tasma (in Russia) still makes B&W films, but I don't know of any US importer, so you'd have a hard time obtaining it.

    Now, can anyone post some helpful information? There seems to be three different versions of Efke films, which are now ADOX. There seem to be two different versions of Bergger films.
    I'm not sure what you mean by "three different versions of Efke films." Do you mean the speeds (25, 50, and 100)? They've also got different initials depending on format (KB for 35mm, R for MF, etc.), so for instance KB25 or R50. My understanding is that Efke films are sold under the Adox name by Fotoimpex in Europe (and formerly by J&C in the US), but as you're in the US you'd presumably be buying it under the Efke name, unless you've already got a stock purchased from J&C.

    Actually, I just checked, and I see that Freestyle is now selling some films under the Adox name. I don't know if these are the same as the Efke films or if they're something else.

    I am really having difficulty finding consensus on who makes what. I don't want to have to needlessly buy film that is merely repackaged.
    Of the brands you mentioned in your first post, AFAIK all of them make their own stuff, with a few exceptions:

    • I've seen conflicting claims about Efke 400; some say that Efke (Fotokemika) makes it, but others say its a repackaged Agfa product.
    • AFAIK Bergger doesn't make anything themselves. I've not followed this situation very closely, but I believe Forte used to make Bergger emulsions but now Ilford does. The claim is that it's Bergger's emulsion, just manufactured elsewhere. I can't vouch for the accuracy of any of this, though; consider it hearsay.
    • I've also not followed Rollei/Maco very closely, but AFAIK they resell others' products. Some of their items aren't available anywhere else, though (they're consumer-oriented versions of products originally intended for other markets, like aerial surveillance films).
    • The Adox brand is another marketing one, similar to Rollei/Maco. Formerly much of it was the same as Efke (made by Fotokemika, "Efke" being their official brand for films), but I'm not sure who makes anything sold as Adox in the US now.


    Then there are three different versions of D-76. . .
    Kodak's, Ilford's (ID-11), and the home-brew variety, do you mean? There may be others. For instance, Freestyle sells something they call Arista-76. The Massive Dev Chart includes a note saying it's equivalent to D-76. I can't verify that this is true, but I also have no reason to doubt it. That said, I certainly wouldn't recommend you use Arista-76 as your D-76 version; it's just not popular enough under that name. A case can be made for any of the others. Kodak's and Ilford's are both popular and widely available. The home-brew variety would make sense for mixing small batches at a fixed time prior to use, thus minimizing developer activity changes if you couldn't use all of a commercial mix very quickly.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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