Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,553   Posts: 1,544,958   Online: 776
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 32
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    509
    Quote Originally Posted by dmr View Post
    HUH???????

    I may disagree with this, particularly for Walgreens rebranded Fuji films.

    When Walgreens first changed from Agfa to Fuji for their Studio 35 film, I carefully inspected the negatives from the 200 and 400 and found them to be the genuine Fuji 200 and 400 films in the guise of Walgreens brand.

    Later I did the same for a roll of their 800. It was, indeed, genuine Fuji 800.

    I can also say quite authoritatively that the old Walgreens/Agfa 200, 400, and 800 were all different products.
    the same is true for CVS, ritz and Rite aid branded films

  2. #12
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Walrath View Post
    The real reason is that drug store 200 is really drug store 400 with a ISO200 DX code on the cannister. You can't pull it two stops and get decent results. Hence, no drug store 400 with an ISO100 DX code on it. Also the reason they sell '800'. It's all ISO 400.
    Chris;

    At one time, this was totally illegal and unless the law has changed remains illegal.

    If a product has a different description on the label it must be distinguishably different as described on the label. Therefore a 200 film is 200, a 400 film is 400 and etc.

    Now, in deference to what you say, it is permissable to have a 200 film which is dyed back by a neutral dye to 100 speed to be packed as both a 200 and 100 film and etc. The distinguishable differences appear in true speed and in sharpness. The 100 film would be sharper than the 200 film even though otherwise identical.

    In fact, two Kodak products in the E6 line fit this description nearly 20 years ago.

    PE

  3. #13
    dmr
    dmr is offline
    dmr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    493
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Now, in deference to what you say, it is permissable to have a 200 film which is dyed back by a neutral dye to 100 speed to be packed as both a 200 and 100 film and etc.
    Thanks, PE.

    You'll be able to confirm or refute this assertion from "another network" on the same topic:

    I do know that, say, Kodak Gold 100 and Gold 200 are the same film, but with a 1-stop ND layer reducing the speed of the lower-rated film.
    Is this true?

    TIA, PE.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    202
    Just out of interest, I have heard somewhere that there are only 4 manufacturers of Colour Print film left. Kodak, Fuji, Ferrenti? and Lucky. So pretty much whatever we buy today that is not from China are going to be something from a reputable source. Can someone who is more in the know comment on that?

  5. #15
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by dmr View Post
    Thanks, PE.

    You'll be able to confirm or refute this assertion from "another network" on the same topic:



    Is this true?

    TIA, PE.
    Having worked on Gold 400 personally for a while, I can say that I know of no case of what you say being true in the past and probably not true in the present. They were distinct films in each case with different formulas.

    The only case I knew of was the E6 product I cited above, but doing what is claimed is entirely possible and legal.

    It is not legal, AFAIK, to sell a 200 and 100 film with absolutely no difference between them and to rely on latitude for getting good exposure.

    PE

  6. #16
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by Hamster View Post
    Just out of interest, I have heard somewhere that there are only 4 manufacturers of Colour Print film left. Kodak, Fuji, Ferrenti? and Lucky. So pretty much whatever we buy today that is not from China are going to be something from a reputable source. Can someone who is more in the know comment on that?
    Ferrania of Italy and Lucky of China both use rather old negative film formulas.

    PE

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Shooter
    Med. Format Pan
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    Ferrania of Italy and Lucky of China both use rather old negative film formulas.

    PE
    Do Konica still produce colour negative films?

  8. #18
    Photo Engineer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    23,030
    Images
    65
    No.

    PE

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    257
    Quote Originally Posted by Photo Engineer View Post
    At one time, this was totally illegal and unless the law has changed remains illegal.

    If a product has a different description on the label it must be distinguishably different as described on the label. Therefore a 200 film is 200, a 400 film is 400 and etc.
    I have a friend who is REALLY into car audio. And one of the big problems with SO much car audio equipment is the way that amplifier power is just SO overrated. Amplifiers often claim outrageous numbers such as 500 watts per channel RMS when you KNOW this just can't be true (especially when such an amp bears only a 20 amp fuse, which NEVER blows). In fact, amps like these have been tested to barely produce 30 watts per channel RMS! So it would appear that there is, in general, no law whatsoever that requires a product to live up to the numbers a manufacturer places on it. Of course, there may be specific laws for film ISO that don't exist for, say, power output of amplifiers. But I have never heard of such a thing.

  10. #20
    BetterSense's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,864
    Well, technically film speed is an ISO standard. The definition of watts should be even more fundamental than that, so I guess your point stands anyway.
    f/22 and be there.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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