Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,556   Posts: 1,545,064   Online: 999
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 28
  1. #11
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    All Kodak papers now contain the same color forming ingredients. The curve shapes are adjusted appropriately for professional or amateur (photofinishing) purposes and for the equipment used for the exposing. (enlargers vs printers for example)

    Fuji does the same.

    PE

  2. #12
    Matt5791's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    England, Birmingham
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    998
    Images
    17
    Fuji seem to have a real strong presence in the UK for paper. A lot of those who used Agfa went over to Fuji.

    The lab I use in Birmingham however is very loyal to Kodak and wont use any FCA, only Endura.

    Any I have just bought a big pile of Endua from Morco for my own use....

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    local
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,325
    Blog Entries
    5
    Images
    50
    PE
    what about cosmic rays ...
    do they have anything to do with image stability?
    i know even in a freezer the cosmic rays can
    fog your film ...

    thnx
    john
    silver magnets, trickle tanks sold
    artwork often times sold for charity
    PM me for details

  4. #14
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    John;

    AFAIK, no case has been made for cosmic ray effects on the final image. This is probably due to the relative size of the grains and molecules that make up the images. Cosmic rays act on an atomic scale rather than on a molecular scale.

    PE

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Quote Originally Posted by Heinz_Anderle View Post
    If I want prints from my film scans, I want them on Fuji Crystal Archive paper. I do not care if they are compatible to RA-4 or whatsoever. I do care if my relatives can look at them in 50 years with the same joy as I do today.

    It is not a pity that Agfa has gone out of business in this field. Their RA-4 papers were the worst in regard to fading stability - not to mention the fraudulent proprietary crap that they sold in the 1970s. But I won't miss Kodak either and will, in the future, ask only for Fuji paper also for poster enlargements. The only ones doing their homework have been the Fuji people, as documented in Henry Wilhelm's book.
    There's a few things you'd do well to remember about Henry Wilhelm

    a) He's a paid consultant.
    b) FujiFilm is one of his clients (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Imaging_Research)
    c) Kodak has never been one of his clients

    I would not place my trust in any (any) scientist who licenses his findings for use by commerical concerns, as Wilhelm so obviously does.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Washington DC area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    596
    interesting....when I go to the Wikipedia entry on Wilhelm I see this message:

    "This article or section is written like an advertisement.
    Please help rewrite this article from a neutral point of view.
    Mark blatant advertising for speedy deletion, using {{db-spam}}."

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Cambridge, MA USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    895
    Another note about Wilhelm...

    Ultimately, it seems, they ISO ratified ANSI IT 9.9 as ISO18909:2006. If you look on the web you'll come across quite a few mailing list posts that suggest the ASTM (American Society for the Testing of Materials) felt that the ANSI IT 9.9 standard for the use of accelerated testing may not have been reflective of true chemical kinetics. Many groups, however, were increasingly concerned that there was no standard testing methodology available, so the standard was eventually pushed through.

    I'm not defending Kodak's methodology; it seems enormously self-serving.
    Digital Photography is just "why-tech" not "high tech"..

  8. #18
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Read my post above. I heard Henry's first presentation on dye stability in the 80s, when I first met him. I supplied part of the data used by Dr. Tuite at the same session that showed Kodak's POV.

    Henry uses the Fuji test method just about exclusively and this causes his data to look like theirs. The point of my comment here is not to say one is better or worse, but merely that test conditions change the results of image stability by a big amount!

    PE

  9. #19
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    There is a new ANSI standard under consideration at the present time.

    PE

  10. #20
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Kodak testing may seem self serving but it was developed through thousands of hours of experimentation and tests in the real world.

    The same comments positive or negative may be said about Fuji.

    PE

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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