Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,300   Posts: 1,535,827   Online: 806
      
Page 16 of 24 FirstFirst ... 610111213141516171819202122 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 240
  1. #151

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7

    Report on 4 batches, with batch numbers

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenhause View Post
    I am thinking Agfa would want to do the production of the Aviphot Chrome 200 all in the same location seeing that all that highly specialized film production equipment and staff were already set up in Leverkusen to produce the RSXII 200 Dia film. ...

    The film lots found to be "yellow" should be published so that those folks who possess the offending lot numbers can exchange the film for properly performing film, I would bet that would really boost confidence in this film. ...
    If it helps, here are some batch numbers and what I found with them.

    67821601, sold as Rollei Digibase 200. I have tried 4 rolls. 3 were very strongly yellow at the beginning of the roll, tapering off to still markedly yellow on the last frames. 1 roll was markedly yellow on the first frames, slightly yellow on the last frames.

    67821601, sold as Rollei Digibase 200. I have tried 4 rolls. One was like the least bad of batch 601 above, markedly yellow at the beginning, slightly yellow at the end. 3 were noticeably yellow at the beginning, very mildly yellow at all at the end.

    67821606, sold as Lomography XPro 200. I have tried only one roll, markedly yellow at the beginning, slightly yellow at the end. (I tried a roll of Lomography XPro 100 at the same time, it seemed to be Lomo-labelled Kodak Elitechrome 100; no wonder Lomo no longer sell it. The colors were all as one expects from Elitechrome 100, no sign of yellowing.)

    67821607, sold as Rollei Crossbird. I have tried only one roll, markedly yellow at the beginning, very mildly yellow at the end.

    In each case, I bought several rolls, and am now left with film I am not sure what to do with. The last few frames on rolls from batches 602, 606 and 607 look almost as good as the sample photographs shown from film sold by Wittner, and I have ordered some from Wittner and plan to shoot a roll of each of the above in parallel with a roll from Wittner.

    A few more comments:
    The film is definitely not planned to be yellow to correct for the blue tint possibly produced in aerial photography from 5 thousand or 10 thousand metres. Firstly, the yellow cast varies from start to end of the film. Secondly, I shot photographs on a commercial flight over Greenland, at about 10 thousand metres, on a roll of batch 601 and a roll of Ektachrome 100G at the same time. The snow on E100G was white, the snow on Digibase 200 was strongly yellow.
    The yellow is nothing to do with poor processing - I have got the same results whether the film was home processed or commercially processed.
    The yellow cast is not due to bad storage of master rolls, as it varies from strong at the beginning of 35mm rolls, to less at the end of rolls. It could to be due to:
    Bad practice in spooling individual rolls of 35mm film, leading to some, or a lot, of light piping down the roll.
    Poor quality light trapping felt on the 35 mm film canisters.
    Storage in very bad conditions, leading to the film on the outside of the film canister getting a strong yellow fog, the film near the center of the canister being less affected.

    I was very disappointed in the results, except a few of the last frames on some rolls, especially after reading excellent reviews from several years ago. I do look forward to trying the film packaged by Wittner, and shall not buy any more of the film labelled Rollei and spooled by Maco, until either Maco admit what happened, or we get reports of uniformly good film coming from Maco again.

    Many thanks for all the reports posted in this thread.

  2. #152

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    145
    This is a very interesting read, and is a surprise to me if this stock is indeed 8 years old and no longer made, but i guess that could explain why some people report yellowing?

    Im going to ask Wittner-Cinetec about this, but i expect they have already read these posts.

    As far as light piping goes, this film is very bad for light piping, and Wittner-Cinetec acknowledge this, my film displayed signs of this, however, it never affected my images, or made them yellow, just a little bit of orange around the sprocket holes.
    I loaded my next cartridge in the dark, so will see if this helps, the only other thing that may be a factor is if the cartridges are not sealing the light out the best.

  3. #153

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,456
    How about developing it as a negative in C-41? Any reports on the "cross-process" front?
    - Bill Lynch

  4. #154

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    143
    I've followed this thread for a long time and used the film a handful if times. I'm convinces, reading individual reports and taking this thread as a whole that the issue is to do with light piping and not bad film.

    Everyone is aware of the issue but not recognising that it may be the only cause of the problem. If the problem is worse near the leader and gets better throughout the film this sounds like classic light piping.

    I don't think this film can be handled like normal film. I think you need to treat it like HEI and load I'm complete darkness. I also think it should be stored in black canisters, which my film came in but I'd sounds like others haven't.

    A real test would be to look at results from 120 film where the backing paper should stop the light piping. Has anyone experienced this problem with 120 film?

  5. #155
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    wlodekmj,

    Many thanks for that comprehensive report. I never heard about that gradual yellowing before.
    You also gave good thought on the cause.

    However...., why are there no reports on that unmasked C-41 film also offered by Maco? That would show respective gradual colour change (otherwise veiled by the mask) in case of that light piping theory being valid.
    The quality of the light-trapping velvet can be considered to be of minor effect only.


    Anyway, as hinted at by me with other problems, it is the industry, in this case Maco, to find out.
    So far I did not read a single word by them on that issue.
    Last edited by AgX; 08-05-2013 at 04:44 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  6. #156

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    The gradual yellowing does sound like light-piping. If it's bad storage, it must have been really bad and totally careless.

    (FWIW, I recently finished off the film in a Kodak disposable camera which had been forgotten in the back of a car for at least a couple of years. Expiry date was 2005, shots taken way back were poor, but the current shots were fine. So it seemed latent images suffered but the unexposed film was not noticeably affected).

  7. #157

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Paula, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    345
    Makes me wonder if the film in 35mm was poorly handled by those cutting and packing the film.

    The 120 film may have not been cut and packed at the same location as the 35mm, Is the 120 film showing "Yellow"?

    I looked at the Agfa Aviphot Chrome 200 Pdf and I see the Yellow layer on top, then the magenta layer in the middle then the cyan layer is closest to the film base, I am thinking if light travels through the film base it would need to pass through the cyan and magenta layers to get to the yellow layer on top.

    Perhaps the 35mm cartridges had residual volatile organic compounds inside in the paint that affected the film.

    I have used the other Agfa Polyester based films and don't really see much of a light piping problem, I have been careful to load the film in really, really dim light but did load a roll of CR-200 into my Widelux camera in fairly bright light and I did not see much fogging of the first frames, the film was uniformly yellow and the sprocket holes did not show any fogging. "Your Mileage May Vary"
    Last edited by Alpenhause; 08-05-2013 at 10:36 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  8. #158

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London, England
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenhause View Post
    Makes me wonder if the film in 35mm was poorly handled by those cutting and packing the film.
    Yes, it is possible that for some months the Aviphot was being put into 35mm cassettes and then packed into the plastic cans under ordinary light, or even under strong light. Maybe someone forgot that this film must be protected from light piping. Or maybe the person/people who knew it went away for holiday, or for another reason. I put one roll into a 35mm camera in a film changing bag, so it was not exposed to light at all, and after the film was finished, I wound it right back into the film cassette. But when it was developed, the film leader was exposed, so clearly the loaded 35mm cassettes were not packed into their plastic cans in the dark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenhause View Post
    The 120 film may have not been cut and packed at the same location as the 35mm, Is the 120 film showing "Yellow"?
    Nobody has reported yellow 120 film, but that would not suffer from light piping, because there is no leader or trailer that is exposed to light when the spools are being packed. There are no reports of fogged polyester-based negative film either, possibly because only the Aviphot was packaged under the wrong conditions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Alpenhause View Post
    Perhaps the 35mm cartridges had residual volatile organic compounds inside in the paint that affected the film.
    That is another interesting suggestion! Perhaps someone from Maco will tell us at some time.

  9. #159

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,456
    Why do they mess around with the polyester base at all?

    Traditional base has always worked great and should be easily available world wide.
    - Bill Lynch

  10. #160
    AgX
    AgX is offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,531
    Polyester base has only advantages to my mind.
    For the purpose that film in question was originally designed for definitely.

    Pure Polyester has a lower optical density than Triacetate. And for the intended use it's well fit. Making a special Polyester base more fit for type 135 and coating a batch onto it means additional costs.

    Only Adox so far spent money on a alternative solution (with their current project).



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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