Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,910   Posts: 1,584,673   Online: 866
      
Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 240
  1. #191

    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,051
    Remember Perez is/was only following the direction he was given by the board.

    Also, the sales and marketing of the film division is now owned by the UK Kodak pension-scheme. They intend to keep things running in order to pay their membership their dues from the profits. The film is, or will be, produced in the usual facilities in Rochester which are NOT owned by the pension scheme so I hope they have an iron-clad supply contract sorted out . . .

  2. #192

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,490
    Future supply will be contracted by multiple sources not necessarily Eastman Kodak.

    This has already begun with the microfilm from Agfa.

    Look for Ferrania gaining a nice fat contract soon. "New Ektachrome!" (made in Italy, Packaged in Mexico, sold in Britain)
    - Bill Lynch

  3. #193
    Prest_400's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Spain
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    558
    It's sad that they can't get into niche market mentality and sometimes end withdrawing material that has good demand and it is even profitable! (but perhaps not enough profitable, that is)
    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    Future supply will be contracted by multiple sources not necessarily Eastman Kodak.

    This has already begun with the microfilm from Agfa.

    Look for Ferrania gaining a nice fat contract soon. "New Ektachrome!" (made in Italy, Packaged in Mexico, sold in Britain)

    Take ektachrome formula from Rochester...

    Send to Ferrania

    R&D a bit
    and gotcha!

    (If it were that easy)

  4. #194

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by Prest_400 View Post
    It's sad that they can't get into niche market mentality and sometimes end withdrawing material that has good demand and it is even profitable! (but perhaps not enough profitable, that is)


    Take ektachrome formula from Rochester...

    Send to Ferrania

    R&D a bit
    and gotcha!

    (If it were that easy)
    that would be awesome!

  5. #195

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Paula, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    358
    I wonder if the latest Wittner-Cinetec 35mm Aviphot Chrome 200 will cross process as good as original Agfa RSXII 100 film does, I would bet if you cross processed the "Yellow" CR-200 film in C-41 the "Yellow" part would most likely carry over and you would get strong yellow shots.

    As I understand it Ektachrome and FujiChrome will go hard yellow or blue, green? when you cross process them.

    I have had CVS, Wrong Aid (Rite-Aid) minilabs do the cross processing of the Agfachrome and it always turns out well balanced color, even the Pro lab does it well. here are some double shots of the Ventura County Fair and the Union Pacific railroad was kind enough to provide a train or two, but wait, what color are Union Pacific Locomotives? I know that one is a General Motors model SD-70 with a V-16 engine with around 4000 HP

    The images on the top is Cross processed Agfachrome shot with a Rollei 35 Xenar model, the lower shots are on the new Lomochrome XR 100-400 film shot with a Russian Lomo LCA automatic camera.

    Strange but cool color rendering and response
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fountain.jpg   Duckies.jpg   limon.jpg   LomoChromeSunset.jpg   JustOutstandingColor.jpg  


  6. #196

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Paula, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    358
    You know what? I have seen a lot of really stupid labs who could give a rat's ass about making sure this unusual film looks good!

    I have been watching on the Lomography website and seeing images submitted that just plain SUCK!

    And you know Damn well it is because of Lame Ass stupid minilabs that just did not bother to make an attempt to do any kind of color balancing!

    I have played around with scans of Lomochrome Purple film in PhotoShop and have found tremendous potential in the color balance, this unusual film picks up quite a bit of color! It is the stupid lame labs that make this film look like trash!

    Image Source of Ventura, California with little to no real coaching about this film's character produced some great images, those that complain about the film being Lame went to a Lame lab!

    Pick your lab carefully before you just piss this film off as lame!

    It was $20 for my pro lab in Ventura to develop and print my 36 exp roll of LomoChrome Purple, 20 bucks well spent IMO! And... they received very little explanation of this film's character!

  7. #197
    spatz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    109
    Well I finally got around to shooting a roll and having it processed. Unfortunately I was out of my regular E6 (provia 100f) one night and I blindly shot a roll using daylight balanced flash. The film was processed using dip and dunk in Sydney and I scanned the images without any colour correction or extraneous editing (mostly cropping and spotting). Scans were made using an epson 4990.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img007.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	488.2 KB 
ID:	73324Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img003.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	470.2 KB 
ID:	73323Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img010.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	377.6 KB 
ID:	73325Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img027.jpg 
Views:	65 
Size:	509.3 KB 
ID:	73326Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img028.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	345.1 KB 
ID:	73327Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img022.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	500.6 KB 
ID:	73328

    The grain is definitely present in this film and makes me wonder how Super 8 users will have to adjust to that. Grain aside I was surprised at how the film rendered certain colours, especially the punchy reds and muted blues. Skin tones I found to be very pleasing. The films latitude is also much better (to my eyes) compared to provia or velvia which I use more frequently. I have started shooting another roll of outdoor scenes only and I look forward to seeing how the film reacts to different colours in different light conditions (mostly noon daylight, afternoon golden light and overcast). I will post images once I finish the roll.

  8. #198

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    390
    Quote Originally Posted by spatz View Post
    Well I finally got around to shooting a roll and having it processed. Unfortunately I was out of my regular E6 (provia 100f) one night and I blindly shot a roll using daylight balanced flash. The film was processed using dip and dunk in Sydney and I scanned the images without any colour correction or extraneous editing (mostly cropping and spotting). Scans were made using an epson 4990.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img007.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	488.2 KB 
ID:	73324Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img003.jpg 
Views:	69 
Size:	470.2 KB 
ID:	73323Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img010.jpg 
Views:	66 
Size:	377.6 KB 
ID:	73325Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img027.jpg 
Views:	65 
Size:	509.3 KB 
ID:	73326Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img028.jpg 
Views:	72 
Size:	345.1 KB 
ID:	73327Click image for larger version. 

Name:	img022.jpg 
Views:	73 
Size:	500.6 KB 
ID:	73328

    The grain is definitely present in this film and makes me wonder how Super 8 users will have to adjust to that. Grain aside I was surprised at how the film rendered certain colours, especially the punchy reds and muted blues. Skin tones I found to be very pleasing. The films latitude is also much better (to my eyes) compared to provia or velvia which I use more frequently. I have started shooting another roll of outdoor scenes only and I look forward to seeing how the film reacts to different colours in different light conditions (mostly noon daylight, afternoon golden light and overcast). I will post images once I finish the roll.
    i wouldnt say those shots are overly grainy at all, but mine seem to be somewhat grainy, but i do wonder if its partly due to poor scanning.
    colours look great!

  9. #199

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Santa Paula, California
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    358
    I think this here film looks pretty Durn Good! Direct flash can be a bit harsh, But I think this film is quite good!

  10. #200

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

    THE PROBLEM IS WITH THE CASSETTES RATHER THAN WITH THE FILM

    On 5 August I posted some batch numbers (well, emulsion numbers) and how yellow the film from them was, in post 151 of this thread.
    I quote part of that below. I apologise, the second emulsion number should have been given as 67821602.

    Like others here, I decided to try the Wittner film and compare it with the film sold by Maco. To avoid any effects from light-piping, I put the unopened film packages and camera bodies in a changing bag and so loaded each film in complete darkness. Just to compare, I also loaded a roll of Wittner film into a camera in subdued light.

    The Wittner film gave very nice results. Not the same palette as Fujichrome, nor Ektachrome: well, as it should, it looked more like Agfachrome! No yellow cast at all.
    What amazed me was that the Rollei CR 200 (emulsion 67821602) and the Crossibird (67821607) were nearly identical to it. No yellow cast at all on the Crossbird. Maybe a very slight yellow cast on the Rollei, possibly due to the film having been packaged some years earlier.

    If just one roll had been unfogged, I would have thought maybe I was lucky with that one. But two, from different batches, both without a marked yellow fog when loaded in the dark, lead me to conclude that the yellow fog is due to light piping in cassettes that do not have the light trapping felt tightly closed, or have poor quality felt. This was one suggestion I made in my previous post.

    The Wittner film loaded into a camera in subdued light showed absolutely no yellow fog either. Better felt, or a tighter closure of the cassette, I assume.

    I now think that the problem is that the machine closing the 35mm cassettes into which Maco was loading cut-down Aviphot was, for a time, not closing tightly enough at the felt light trap. Even under subdued light some light could enter along the film leader poking out, and was piped down the film for a long way.

    Rather than throw away any remaining rolls of Rollei Digibase 200, of Rollei Crossbird 200 and of Lomography XPro 200, it is best to keep the films in their original packaging and to load them into your camera in complete darkness. When the film is finished, wind it completely back into the cassette, so there is no leader left out of the cassette, then put the cassette in a black film holder, not a transparent one, until it is processed.

    This problem will not affect 120 film, since there is no film leader. Unfortunately, no 120 Digibase CR 200 film is available from Maco just now, but apparently more will be available soon.

    Many thanks to everyone, a summary of my earlier post follows.

    Quote Originally Posted by wlodekmj View Post
    If it helps, here are some batch numbers and what I found with them.
    67821601, sold as Rollei Digibase 200. Very strongly yellow at the beginning of the roll, still yellow at the end.
    67821602, sold as Rollei Digibase 200. Noticeably yellow at the beginning, very mildly yellow at all at the end.
    67821606, sold as Lomography XPro 200. Markedly yellow at the beginning, slightly yellow at the end.
    67821607, sold as Rollei Crossbird. Markedly yellow at the beginning, very mildly yellow at the end.

    A few more comments:
    The film is definitely not planned to be yellow to correct for the blue tint possibly produced in aerial photography.
    The yellow is nothing to do with poor processing.
    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. THIS, OR THE CASSETTE NOT CLOSED TIGHTLY, IS WHAT THE ABOVE REPORT SUGGESTS.
    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.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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