Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,277   Posts: 1,534,843   Online: 782
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    22,972
    Images
    65
    There have been several names for AF 2000, including the possibility of typographical errors. This has been discussed extensively in other threads.

    IDK what the correct chemical is, but it appears to have some antifoggant or preservative properties.

    PE

  2. #12
    hrst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Finland
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,300
    Images
    1
    Something called "AF9" was used before AF2000. It was solid, and IIRC, it was stated that AF2000 was introduced because of instability/risk of explosion of AF9. Maybe that would give some hint...

    Anyway, if you take a look at Kodak h2408 (for example, http://sysdoc.doors.ch/KODAK/h2408.pdf ), you will see that the effect of removing the antifoggant is quite minimal; +0.04 in blue low densities. So, it's mostly for "fine-tuning" towards the perfect result, and you probably won't see any difference unless you do a careful side-by-side test. To put this in perspective, the error caused by removing the antifoggant may be below the normal operational tolerances of a motion picture lab.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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