I dont think its an issue to do with light piping at all, i shot my first roll after loading it in a room full of artificial light from fluorescent lamps.
Originally Posted by Simonh82
I did suffer light piping, but only made the edges of the sprocket holes an orange like colour.
The images itself were perfect and my sample shots i posted here display that.
Ive loaded my second roll in the dark as a precaution, but dont feel its 100% necessary.
All Fuji Films are made with a polyester base as far as im aware, and it doesnt seem people are reporting this yellowing issue with their films.
Unless this polyester base in the AGFA stock is ultra clear and allowing more light through?
True, but i thought pretty much all films today had switched over to polyester, mainly because of its long term stability, it does not degrade or break down, well at least not for hundreds of years :P
Originally Posted by wblynch
The old acetate films were often subject to vinegar syndrome.
I've only used this in 120. The first roll I tried about 2 years ago came out well, nicely balanced colours and white whites. There may be some examples I posted near the beginning of this thread I think or another one. On one frame, in the middle, there was some yellow banding which I thought may be from the pocessing. I have experienced light piping with polyester films but this showed more as a light leak from the edges to the centre, so is not even across a frame.
I tried another roll a few months later to test a newly purchased old folder camera which happened to have light leaks, but the film came out fine in terms of colour balance.
I recently tried the film again with another roll of the same batch, now stored for over year showed some yellowing, the processor commented that it just looked warm. And indeed, after scanning, some correction brought the balance back. What I liked was that in a deep shadow area where a Fuji film would have had a blue/purple cast, this film maintained the shadow balance.
The next film I sent to another processor to see if the processing made a difference but they developed as a B&W film!
Last month I got a new lot of 5, no batch number, just labelled RDC2001.These films were marked as a Lomography type on the end of roll sticker. All the frames on this show a yellow cast, more than just a warm colour temperature. I would say that some frames where the exposure may have been a bit over were a bit clearer (I forgot my light meter and had to guess).
It seems that the yellowing may be due to degradation in storage. The Aviphot 200 pdf file you can find and mentioned above makes note of storage conditions and prompt processing after exposure. I don't know how different that is from any other film.
I'm really disappointed because with the demise of other emulsions this looked promising. The first roll I tried had nice neutral balance, clean colours, good sharpness and I liked how it dealt with underexposed shadow areas. I thought the film is a bit grainy compared to present 100 ASA film but in medium format is not really noticeable. I wouldn't use it in 135. It's a shame because when you look at the technology that went into making the film, built in UV filter for instance, and the results I got with the first roll, it all looked good.
Speaking of which I did try, 2 years ago, a roll of the CN200, C41 version in 135 and 120. Both came out with pleasing colour tones, I really liked it as a negative film but usually shoot transparency. The 135 was just too grainy for me but I liked the 120.
So I also bought a 5 roll lot of the CN200 in 120 size and tried a roll last month. Interestingly and unfortunately this film also shows the same yellow cast as the slide film pehaps to an even more pronouced affect, and the solid blue sky areas came out patchy and uneven, you wouldn't think it was the same film I tried 2 years previously. I don't want to use this one again.
It is interesting that these films are now marked as Lomography as I guess the the colour shifts that now appear to affect these films would be the sort of effect those users are after. For me it just means I have wasted around 35 Euro on sub standard film.
Agfa themselves even do not hint at lightpiping at all. Not for their 70mm films, nor for their very own type 135 conversion.
From what i translated on Wittner-Cinetec's site, it suggests lightpiping can be an issue, since it says to keep sealed in the dark, same goes for the label to handle in subdued light, and this film does show lightpiping around the sprocket holes, but my images were fine, and certainly not yellow.
Originally Posted by AgX
I wouldnt worry about it at all, i would just be careful when loading in the camera and storing it in a dark container etc.
I suggest that Richyd tries some of the stock from Wittner for comparison, he shouldn't be disappointed.
Last edited by Nzoomed; 08-05-2013 at 08:35 PM. Click to view previous post history.
What if the emulsion is from Leverkusen but has been coated in Mortsel?
Originally Posted by AgX
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
From the Provia datasheet: "Base Material ......... Cellulose Triacetate
Originally Posted by Nzoomed
It is unusual for any roll film to be coated on polyester. Kodak and Harman (Ilford) sheet films are, and certain specialty films have been in the past (HIE and tech pan spring to mind) but in general if it's 120 or 135 film it's on Cellulose Triacetate.
Originally Posted by David Grenet
On a factory visit to Harman in, IIRC, 2009, it was stated that none of their current films were coated on polyester.
I believe that an advantage of polyester for aerial films is the dimensional stability, which enables accurate measurements to be taken from the processed negs or transparencies. It was also used for the Ilford "Motordrive" 35mm films in the 1980's for its strength in a thinner base, which allowed a 72 exp length to be squeezed into a standard cassette.
regarding light piping.....
when i got my 100 foot roll, i loaded 6 rolls. the first 4 were shot within a week of loading them and they came out great. the other two sat in white film cans. about 2-3 months later i shot the other two rolls. the first 6 frames on those rolls had a terrible yellow cast, then next 3 a light yellow cast and the rest where fine. so if you do load them use them ASAP.
I am wondering if the rolls stored in the white film cans caused the film to light pipe a 2 0r 3 month exposure? were the film cans like the type you can almost see into like the Fuji plastic film cans?
Originally Posted by destroya
I have been storing my bulk loaded Wittner Chrome 200 in black film cans and have been careful not to open the film cans unless it is in really dim light.
I loaded an additional 3 to 4 frames leading and trailing to my 36x rolls, seems to be working out well so far.
this is a very interesting read about film bases!
Perhaps im being confused with motion picture films being polyester nowdays?
I thought that kodaks ESTAR base was used on most of their films too?
I thought that it would have been logical to use polyester base over acetate because it does not degrade nowhere near as fast as acetate and wont get vinegar syndrome.
Anyway ive just been reading here that kodak is shutting down their acetate film plant, they will be buying it from other sources.
Last edited by Nzoomed; 08-06-2013 at 09:02 PM. Click to view previous post history.