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 . . .
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)
that would be awesome!
Originally Posted by Prest_400
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
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
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!
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.
Originally Posted by spatz
colours look great!
I think this here film looks pretty Durn Good! Direct flash can be a bit harsh, But I think this film is quite good!
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.
Originally Posted by wlodekmj