Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,559   Posts: 1,573,292   Online: 946
      
Page 33 of 141 FirstFirst ... 23272829303132333435363738394383133 ... LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 1409
  1. #321
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,402
    Images
    65
    I made internegatives regularly until I got involved in the emulsion work. It is no problem really, to turn out a good interngeg. The problem is that there is no interneg film made anymore and so you have to use Portra 160 to do the job. It is OK, but gives some errors in the toe and shoulder region that a real interneg film would fix. I've posted the entire sequence here on APUG several times, so if you are interested, look them up!

    PE

  2. #322
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,784
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by ME Super View Post
    What? When did the laws of physics on planet Earth change so that my projector no longer works? Last time I projected a slide, it projected just fine! And if projection no longer works, then there's no way to do analog enlargements from negatives either. Oh the horror!

    Okay, sarcasm aside, here. Before scanning was invented, we could view slides by holding them up to the light, viewing them on a lightbox, or projecting them - sometimes bigger than life. All of these methods for viewing slides still work. We don't have to scan them in order to view them. As far as printing goes, for me at least, the method we do not speak of on APUG works just fine.
    Ok send me your 8x10 projector and I'll use that.... *facepalm*

    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    I made internegatives regularly until I got involved in the emulsion work. It is no problem really, to turn out a good interngeg. The problem is that there is no interneg film made anymore and so you have to use Portra 160 to do the job. It is OK, but gives some errors in the toe and shoulder region that a real interneg film would fix. I've posted the entire sequence here on APUG several times, so if you are interested, look them up!

    PE
    Thanks PE when the time comes to do it in school I will.
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  3. #323

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    365
    Whats wrong with scanning them anyway? I reckon its the only way to go, the colour reproduction seems perfect on all my scans...

  4. #324

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    855
    Overhead projectors can do 8x10 no problem. Or build a projector from an 8x10 camera. It can be done. There's also the lightbox option - 8x10 on a lightbox is still 8x10, much easier to view on a lightbox without a loupe than a 35mm slide.
    ME Super

    Shoot more film.
    There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.

  5. #325

    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,789
    I fail to understand what Stone's latest filmic agonies have to do Film Ferrania and their production plans ...

  6. #326
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,784
    Images
    225
    Quote Originally Posted by Nzoomed View Post
    Whats wrong with scanning them anyway? I reckon its the only way to go, the colour reproduction seems perfect on all my scans...
    It really is, a lot of people here just like to argue for no reason just to be difficult. I highly doubt if you took Portra and made an interneg if a Velvia50 image, and then optically printed it, that the saturation of color apparent in the original transparency would be at all comparable to the print.

    Color film developing and printing is hard enough already without adding more complications to the process.

    And projecting your sheet film with an overhead? For one what use is that if you're trying to sell prints.... and two, you'll end up scratching your film... No thank you...
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  7. #327
    StoneNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Connecticut, USA
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    7,784
    Images
    225

    Film from Italy -- Ferrania starting production 2014

    Quote Originally Posted by pdeeh View Post
    I fail to understand what Stone's latest filmic agonies have to do Film Ferrania and their production plans ...
    It's not about me, other people want to pick apart my comment to make drama, I'm just saying FILM Ferrania won't partner with kodak to re-create E100G or any other Kodak E-6 ... The rest is just people wanting to start an argument because they have nothing better to do.
    Last edited by StoneNYC; 08-12-2014 at 05:39 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: spelling
    ~Stone | "...of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~Dennis Miller

  8. #328
    Ken Nadvornick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Monroe, WA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,581
    Images
    48
    Sooo...

    According to the text at the bottom of the video link I posted, Film Ferrania is set to make a "big announcement" in mid-September. That's only four weeks away. How cool is that? Anyone wanna' bet whether there is a companion announcement by a certain large west coast (USA) film retailer shortly afterwards? Just a WAG (wild ass guess).

    My guess is that Ferrania announces E-6 compatible cine film first, as that seems to have been their original motivation. Followed relatively closely by some 135 E-6. I don't expect to see 120 or sheet films for quite a while, even though they were quick early on to say they could do those as well.

    I find it interesting that they seem to claim the delay thus far has been to work within a timetable for demolition of unneeded older manufacturing space, but on a schedule that will allow them to seek funding to "save" some of the production equipment they say they will need.

    Originally I thought they said they didn't need any of that older (larger?) infrastructure. Rank speculation here, but I wonder if they took note of the abandonment of E-6 film by Kodak, followed by the continuing reduction of C-41/E-6 lines by Fujifilm, and decided their original plan wasn't likely to be able to handle the entire remaining residual worldwide color film demand after the other players eventually quit the market entirely.

    So maybe they changed plans in the middle of the process and decided to preserve some of the other equipment? And they didn't have the capital under their original plan to do that, so the Italian government stepped in to lend a hand? The prospect of having a potential worldwide monopoly on color film in the near future, even at only residual volumes, might have sounded just too good to pass up?

    Just thinkin' out loud...



    Ken
    "They are the proof that something was there and no longer is. Like a stain. And the stillness of them is boggling. You can turn away but when you come back they’ll still be there looking at you."

    — Diane Arbus, March 15, 1971, in response to a request for a brief statement about photographs

  9. #329

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    365
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick View Post
    Sooo...

    According to the text at the bottom of the video link I posted, Film Ferrania is set to make a "big announcement" in mid-September. That's only four weeks away. How cool is that? Anyone wanna' bet whether there is a companion announcement by a certain large west coast (USA) film retailer shortly afterwards? Just a WAG (wild ass guess).

    My guess is that Ferrania announces E-6 compatible cine film first, as that seems to have been their original motivation. Followed relatively closely by some 135 E-6. I don't expect to see 120 or sheet films for quite a while, even though they were quick early on to say they could do those as well.

    I find it interesting that they seem to claim the delay thus far has been to work within a timetable for demolition of unneeded older manufacturing space, but on a schedule that will allow them to seek funding to "save" some of the production equipment they say they will need.

    Originally I thought they said they didn't need any of that older (larger?) infrastructure. Rank speculation here, but I wonder if they took note of the abandonment of E-6 film by Kodak, followed by the continuing reduction of C-41/E-6 lines by Fujifilm, and decided their original plan wasn't likely to be able to handle the entire remaining residual worldwide color film demand after the other players eventually quit the market entirely.

    So maybe they changed plans in the middle of the process and decided to preserve some of the other equipment? And they didn't have the capital under their original plan to do that, so the Italian government stepped in to lend a hand? The prospect of having a potential worldwide monopoly on color film in the near future, even at only residual volumes, might have sounded just too good to pass up?

    Just thinkin' out loud...



    Ken
    Personally, im feeling along the same lines as this.
    Its not a bad thing, but will the equipment being used still be too big for the production? Or are they expecting that they will sell plenty of volume?

    It really sucks that kodak has dropped everything E6, we should campaign hard on their facebook page. It would be good if they could licence the product for ferrania to produce, but i hope that their E6 lines replace what was taken away by kodak and Fuji, and that is high speed E6 film.
    I even submitted an awesome photo for their photo of the day, which was taken on ektachrome e100g and it never got selected, partially because of it being a discontnued film i guess. This is the photo here:
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	crater_800.jpg 
Views:	40 
Size:	305.4 KB 
ID:	92644
    I would like to see a film that is a good replacement for e100g and e100vs if nothing else.

  10. #330
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,970
    Quote Originally Posted by StoneNYC View Post
    Ok send me your 8x10 projector and I'll use that.... *facepalm*
    Projectors for even larger formats are still offered.


    That is high power projectors, not in-front-of-wall overheads.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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