Did anyone use Agfa Scala 135/36 from B&H?
I have recently bought three rolls of the above mentioned film from them and found out that this is a repackaged film, i.e. the cartriges were notoriginal.
Can anyone think of a sufficient proof that the film incide is the real Agfa Scala?
If you process it and the film sez Scala on the edges, and it is higher in contrast than you expected (processed as a neg), then it is probably Scala.
I would try one roll rated at EI 100. Shoot it in flat light, and develop it for 5 or 6 minutes in something like D-76 1:1 or HC-110 dil B. See what you get. If it lacks edge marking, it still could be Scala. Sometimes relabelled film does not have edge markings. If it is low in contrast, it probably is not Scala.
I would have no reason to doubt B&H's claim, however.
Good luck. It is a great film if used for the right things.
I find that this film's best use is as a very high contrast negative film to be used in very flat light. Most recently, two 120 rolls of it that I have had for years (waiting for the right conditions) turned some very dull shots of mine shot in the Smokey Mountains in winter into beautiful, contrasty, sharp pictures without having to overdevelop the film, like I would have had to have done with FP4, Delta, etc.
If all you want is a black and white transparency film, you can use any normal b/w film developed to higher than normal contrast. Ilford has a published reversal process, and so do some other folks. You can also send it to DR5 lab in Colorado, U.S.A., and they can do it for you.
There was nothing special about Scala that made it a transparency film specifically. It was simply a negative film built with contrast characteristics that were well suited to reversal processing.
Last edited by 2F/2F; 03-12-2009 at 07:59 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."
- Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)
Thank you for this ample info. I live in a former Soviet Union country (called Ukraine), speak Russian and have access to the former Soviet litterature on photography, where (as early as in 1990) Agfa's reversal B&W process was fully described.
I need some proof that the thing I am using IS Agfa Scala and nothing else. Problem is, the results may turn out good and may turn out bad, but, as an experimenter, I need to identify my starting point.
So the question is open: can anyone think of a good proof that I (or B&H) was not fooled?
Apparently master rolls of Agfa films manufactured just before the factory closed have subsequently been slit and packaged independently (quite legitimately) under licence from the old company.
I've used these films (Agfapan 100 and 400, and Agfachrome), they are in packaging nearly identical to the old films (just the new suppliers name) and are fine.
I've not seen Scala repackaged in this way, but it could be similar. Why not ask B&H, (they're a reputable business), otherwise the suggestions from the previous posters should get you started to test one of the films.
thank you for your reply.
Please understand that I do not doubt the credibility of B&H. I simply need a clou as to finding some proof that the film inside is really Agfa Scala.
P.S. I can sell you tons of Tasma film in old Kodak or Fuji cartriges and by the price of T-Max or Neopan Acros. See what I am driving at?
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
I see your point. But we would have to assume that someone had thought it worthwhile to package some other film as Scala (which is a product in limited demand), then deceive a reputable dealer to buy it from them?
Originally Posted by LaChou
The company still offering Agfa film under licence is Lupus Imaging...their website
shows a full range of color and B&W, including Scala.
Given this, and B&H's reputation, I think that there is every chance that your Scala is genuine. Other than that, I think that the proof would be to check if the appearance of the unexposed film leader is the same as Scala, the appearance of the edge markings on a processed film, and the general characteristics in processing, etc., compared with a known specimen of original Scala.
i've got 5 rolls of the stuff, that have been sitting in my fridge since agfa went bust.....thought i'd done me dough!. wonder what it'd look like for naturally lit studio portraits.....
Originally Posted by 2F/2F
I have seen that you can get some film still from Agfa. Mostly "Servailence Film" and other kind of film like that...Maybe they still make still make Scala?
Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time
If you have some fresh Tasma, I have some 35mm Scala in my freezer (it has been there since I bought it and it still gives excellent results, even though it expired a few months ago) that perhaps we could exchange some rolls? It is the real film in the real Scala cartridge, even inside an AGFA canister with their official Scala 200x sticker on the lid. No worries about this film (not that I would not trust B&H, but I have shot this film and it is definitely Scala).
Originally Posted by LaChou
Let me know if you are interested in trading films. I always wanted to shoot some fresh Tasma film. Thank you for your helpful consideration.
Yes, we could trade films if you are aware of the fact that original Scala (even if expired) costs more than original Tasma (even fresh). I can organize this trading with you, but since it goes out of the scope of this thread, please write to me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Originally Posted by Alexander Ghaffari
P.S. I may be somewhat unjust to Tasma. I have used a lot of A-2 cine film at earlier days of my photography adventure, and it was something that either Kodak nor Fuji have definetely never produced. So, it give a very particular, recognisable "look" to the final result. Pity, I can't show you my earlier work on A-2 at APUG galleries.