Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,886   Posts: 1,520,617   Online: 1044
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    428
    Kodak 2475 Recording was on Estar-AH brand polyester base. Curly as hell, but I never broke a camera with the stuff. With 20 rolls in the freezer, I'm not scared by it.

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    One reason we've not heard about damage to 35mm cameras recently is there were virtually no polyester based conventional 35mm films available, since Ilford withdrew the 72ex film.
    Tech Pan and EIR were both coated on polyester bases, if I recall. Perhaps someone who has used a lot of either could shed some light on the matter?

  3. #13
    Rick A's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    north central Pa
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    5,816
    Images
    31
    One problem with polyester that noone speaks of, is static charge buildup. In cool dry weather sliding polyester across another surface can and usually does create and discharge a sizable dose of static electricity. Imagine the results inside of your camera from that.
    Rick

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,912
    Images
    65
    All Kodak polyester films have hefty doses of antistats or conducting materials to prevent this.

    PE

  5. #15
    cmo
    cmo is offline
    cmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    1,457
    Images
    57
    If you use an old-fashioned mechanic camera film transport will never be as precise as with a modern analog EOS. I can see from the gaps between the frames whether I shot a film with my EOS 1v or with my Leica M6. I don't know which is more dangerous: a camera that has some mechanical clearance or a precision monster that forces the film into the right position. So far, I never had an issue with film transport in an EOS 3 and a 1v.
    I use 35mm films since 31 years, and I used thousands of rolls. It happened eight times that a film was stuck. It happened twice in a Contarex, once in a Voigtländer Vitessa, once in a Nikon FM, two times in my motorized Nikon F3 in the 80s. It happened twice in my Leica M6 which is no fun when you have to remove the remainings of good photos out of the film chamber. If I imagine that the film inside the camera is as indesctructable as Polyester a knife or pair of scissors belongs into every camera bag.

    Now, how much money would I have lost during those years if I had used Polyester film?

    Nobody can answer that question.

    I can only say: Polyester film is not for me.

    There are still so many good films available, why should I risk my cameras for some special films that do not even offer huge advantages over good films on a normal base?

    Where are the advantages of Polyester films?
    - They last 500 years - I don't.
    - They don't tear - but when was the last time I ripped a film outside a camera? I can't remember because it never happened. But I might ruin my cameras.
    - They don't tear - but you need a pair of scissors in the darkroom to remove the spool.
    - The base is clear - but it works as a light conductor and might fog frames inside the cartridge.

    One guy has shown the results of polyester film as a light conductor fogging the first SIX frames:

    http://medienfrech.wordpress.com/200...ase-cn200-pro/

    (Sorry, it's in german language, the fogged frames are in the middle of the page.)

  6. #16
    Martin Reed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    North London
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    325
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    .....Howard Hopwood made it clear that under no circumstances would the company supply 35mm camera film on a Polyester base again. He pointed out that prior to his joining the company Ilford had been making & selling special 72ex 35mm film on a thin polyester base.....
    Ian
    I think the biggest problem with 72 exposure Ilford Autowind film was that the company had been selling it specifically FOR motor drive cameras, aiming at people who intended to blaze away until brought up short. There must have been quite an issue, as after an extensive advertising campaign the product vanished almost overnight.

    (This left them with with an amazing quantity of 72x stainless steel tanks and reels which were still being knocked out cheap by various dealers 15 years later)

  7. #17
    Ross Chambers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Blue Mountains NSW Australia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    703
    One of the show off tricks in movie film cutting rooms was to snap the film with one hand: easy in 16mm, virtuoso in 35mm. I tried with polyester (usually used for release prints and the heavy handling they receive) and couldn't tear it with 2 hands, teeth, or even--without major effort--a splicer cutter.

    I'd hesitate to load a roll of 35mm polyester film, but of course 120 and sheets are fine.

    Ross

  8. #18
    2F/2F's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,008
    Images
    4
    With the polyester base, how the heck do they expect us to rip the sprocket holes in order to get that extra shot?
    2F/2F

    "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)

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    17
    Hello Ian,

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    With a growing number of alternative 35mm films now being marketed on Polyester film base just how safe are they for conventional still camera use.
    From my own experience and the experience of other professional photographers: They are extremely safe. We've never had any problem. Not with Kodak Technical Pan (ESTAR base = Polyester), nor Agfa or Fotokemika/Efke, Maco, Rollei, Adox films.
    Used in different older and in modern motor cameras with 8 fps.
    The modern PET films are safe, because they are designed for use in motorised cameras. Most of surveillence and aerial cameras have powerful motor winding,as well as modern 35mm still cameras.
    And the modern (last 25 years) cameras with built in motors have sensors. If there are any slight problems (resistance) they stop the motor to prevent damage.

    Do a search here on apug or on photo.net.Try to find someone reporting that his camera was damaged by polyester film. I doubt you will find anyone. I have never heard that this has happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    On last years Ilford factory tour the Chairman, Howard Hopwood made it clear that under no circumstances would the company supply 35mm camera film on a Polyester base again. He pointed out that prior to his joining the company Ilford had been making & selling special 72ex 35mm film on a thin polyester base, while he didn't say the full extent of the problem the films was withdrawn, some cameras were damaged.
    They don't tell you the whole story: I've used this film, some colleagues as well. The problem with this film was not the polyester base. It was that the base was simply too thin. The modern PET films are much thicker, similar dimension compared to triazetate.
    Ilford made the base so thin to get the long 72 exp. roll into the cartridge.
    The problem was keeping the film flat in the camera. It had too much room to curl slightly in the film channel. Because it was too thin and not stable enough.That caused sometimes some transportation problems. The motor then stopped. But the transportation mechanism was not damaged.
    If they had used a thin triazetate base for 72 exp., it had caused the same problems.Probably much more, because the thin triazetate base were torn,not stable enough at that "thickness".

    Because of the very thin base, loading it on the Kinderman or Nikkor 72 exp. reel was like trying to wind up wet toilet paper
    Not only was the base too thin - the emulsion was different to normal HP and it was difficult to get decent negs from it.

    All in all, in this case Ilford did not a good job with this film. But it had nothing to do with the polyester base.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    He also pointed out that no major manufacturer used polyester film base for 35mm film.
    That is wrong. Agfa-Gevaert is making it,and they are producing much more BW film p.a. than Ilford. And Fotokemika / Efke (in consequence Adox CHS,too) has recently changed the film base from triazetate to polyester. The latest batches are already coated on PET.
    And Adox CMS is coated on PET, too. Never had a problem with this film (at least concerning the base).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Acetate film will tear if there's a film transport problem, usually at the sprocket holes, but Polyester is too strong and damage can occur to the transport/wind mechanism, potentially worse with a high speed motor drive.
    No, the modern high speed motor drives stop winding immediately if too much resistance occurs. No danger of damaging.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Are the manufacturers selling us film on Polyester base irresposnsible ?
    Ian
    No, they are not. Not Kodak, not Agfa-Gevaert, not Fotokemika, not Adox, not Rollei-Film, not Fuji.

    Regards, Michael

  10. #20
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,187
    Images
    148
    Michael, you're full of crap. Thanks for the co-ordinated Rollei/Maco response.

    I rather suspect that you and a few other new members posting recently on threads regarding Rollei/Maco products are all affiliated to the company in some way. I have informed the Moderators.

    Yes it's true certain cameras such as surveillance, traffic and microfilm cameras are designed to be used with Polyester based films, but they are heavily over engineered compared to conventional 35mm film cameras.

    But all you've written doesn't make Polyester film base safe for conventional camera use.

    Ian
    Last edited by Ian Grant; 07-29-2009 at 03:36 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: Moderators are now Monitoring all Rollei/Mac threads

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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