Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,955   Posts: 1,586,026   Online: 698
      
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 61
  1. #21
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,561
    Images
    65
    I agree fully with this. After all, as one of my old bosses said: "We sell pictures, not sensitometric curves". I think that expresses, from an engineering standpoint and with a bit of irony as well, what you just said.

    PE

  2. #22
    dmr
    dmr is offline
    dmr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    493
    I shot a 4-pack of the Kroger ISO 200 house brand film last summer, when it was on sale.

    It's most definitely Ferrania. Says so on the negative strips.

    It's very "ok", but lacks the Charles Atlas Seal of Approval.

    Definitely more grainy and "rougher" in appearance than the Kodak Gold 200, Fuji Superia, and even the Walgreens/Agfa 200.

    The problem with is it that the supermarkets sell it for what you can buy Fuji or Kodak over at Target' or Wally World. They also carry Fuji and Kodak at non-competitive prices.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Aquitaine
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    The ideal picture with a checker is a real picture with a checker in the scene, so that everything is balanced.
    PE

    Hard to argue with that. Next time you talk with Grant, please say that I enormously appreciated his hospitality (indeed, in Florida) and that I REALLY AM working my way through the book in sequence, not just cherry-picking.

    I hate to appear rude but I do not know your real name; I salute you as one of those giants (of yesteryear, again at the risk of appearing rude) whose knowledge makes most of today's 'experts' look quite feeble. I am overcome with embarrassment when I think how unworthy I was to appear in the Oxford Companion as compared with those who contributed to the first and second Focal Encyclopaedias (though not later editions) or indeed with those who can discuss matters with Grant as an equal.

    Edit: on further thought, and with some reflection upon objective colour processes (Lippmann) versus subjective, do I not recall correctly thar reproduced colours are (or were until recently) almost always less saturated than real life? In other words, even if the Macbeth chart is reproduced accurately, how much does this mean, given that it is a printed chart to begin with?

    I realize that this queston verges on the mystical/meaningless (if spectral response asnd brightness match, they are the same thing) but equally there is the question of the very limited brightness range across which colour can be convincingly reproduced (including printed charts) -- a far more limited range than we can 'read' in real life.

    As I say, I am but a novice in such matters compared with yourself; but I flatter myself that I know (just) enough to ask the right questions on occasion, and sometimes to understand the answers, when talking to/corresponding with those who really do have some understanding of the subject -- such as the question of 'sparkle' in monochrome prints, which both Mike Gristwood and Dr. Hubert Nasse assure me is a function of very high MTF values at relatively low frequencies.

    Cheers,

    Roger
    Last edited by Roger Hicks; 10-31-2006 at 06:39 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  4. #24
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,561
    Images
    65
    Roger;

    Grant and I did a lot of work together over the span of about 10 years. Most of it is unpublished to this day, but his autograph on my copy of his book is "For old times". I miss those days.

    I was not a giant. I was just another worker, but we had a lot of fun.

    PM me and we can take this off-line.

    PE

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,381
    Images
    84
    Did Ferrania make the Scotchchrome 1000 E6 films?
    This was discontinued in the mid 90s I believe.
    I love this film for it's pastel colours & outrageous grain.

  6. #26
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,561
    Images
    65
    Goldie;

    All 3M films were made either by 3M in Rochester NY or their other plant in MN or by Ferrania. IIRC, although R&D was done by both 3M and Ferrania, all color coatings made for sale were done by Ferrania in Italy.

    PE

  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    They didn't catch up! No way did they catch up with either EK or Fuji. If anything, the gap increased. I have followed the work there as well as at Agfa and Fuji.
    I said catch up a bit -- meaning narrowed the gap, not closed it completely. As I wrote in my earliest post in this thread, IMHO Ferrania films are (present tense) behind Kodak and Fuji in terms of grain and color quality. My subjective impression is that the gap is less significant today than it was a decade or two ago, but that's just my subjective impression. It could be my impression is wrong, or it could be that the gap is as big or bigger now in terms of being "x years behind," but that there's been less improvement in emulsion technology in those x years than in the preceding x years.

    FWIW, I also agree with Phototone's comment that even films that are grainy, produce poor color accuracy, or are otherwise flawed from a traditional or technical point of view can have their place. Ultimately it all comes down to what you like in a print (or slide), and that's very subjective.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    Not great art, but a test of cameras using Finast (Ferrania OEM) 200: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...y.php?cat=5295

    Earl
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

  9. #29
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,561
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694 View Post
    I said catch up a bit -- meaning narrowed the gap, not closed it completely. As I wrote in my earliest post in this thread, IMHO Ferrania films are (present tense) behind Kodak and Fuji in terms of grain and color quality. My subjective impression is that the gap is less significant today than it was a decade or two ago, but that's just my subjective impression. It could be my impression is wrong, or it could be that the gap is as big or bigger now in terms of being "x years behind," but that there's been less improvement in emulsion technology in those x years than in the preceding x years.

    FWIW, I also agree with Phototone's comment that even films that are grainy, produce poor color accuracy, or are otherwise flawed from a traditional or technical point of view can have their place. Ultimately it all comes down to what you like in a print (or slide), and that's very subjective.

    I can't disagree with what you say. It is all subjective and difficult to quantify in some cases.

    PE

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Rochester, NY/Toronto, ON
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    559
    Some of the 3M emulsions were very nice, if a bit grainy.
    Honey, I promise no more searching eBay for cameras.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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