Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,534   Posts: 1,544,053   Online: 1117
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,270
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by DBP View Post
    Are people having problems with normal motor drives?
    Most people with motor drives don't use films like this anyway, they buy film designed for camera use by the major manufacturers.

    Ian

  2. #12
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    PET is perfectly fine for manually driven cameras and some motor drives. Its not going to tear the back off the camera. Stop the FUD.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #13
    Ektagraphic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Southeastern Massachusetts
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,720
    Images
    23
    Dale Labs will take it for sure. www.Dalelabs.com They are a great lab.
    Helping to save analog photography one exposure at a time

  4. #14
    AgX
    AgX is online now

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,600
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark Antony View Post
    PET is indeed tear resistant, this shouln't be a problem with most photo machines as they don't use the sprocket for film transport even roller transports use leaders that move on drive cogs so the film is untouched by the machine drives.
    It is possible if they have a roller transport they are worried about the blades cutting the end of the film-not an issue if the blades are sharp.
    Anyone with a dip and dunk should be happy to process as will deep tank handline process.
    Mark
    I have never heard of problems related to PET base with continuous transport processors.
    Furthermore DR5chrome state that they use for E-6 processors from italian Technolab. To my understanting they only made film processors of the dip-and-dunk principle.

  5. #15
    Mark Antony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    East Anglia,UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    772
    Images
    38
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    I have never heard of problems related to PET base with continuous transport processors.
    Furthermore DR5chrome state that they use for E-6 processors from italian Technolab. To my understanting they only made film processors of the dip-and-dunk principle.
    Neither have I, but if someone is rufusing to develop PET films they must be worried about something. BTW isn't this Dwanes we are talking about not DR5?

    I don't know if this could be an issue but I remember a processor that had IR film sensors at the edge for repeleshment if PET is used they might have a light pipe issue.
    Unlikely though- I think Dwanes are being Über careful.

    EDit I think Fleath had the best explaination, the most logical one anyhow.

  6. #16
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,270
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by clayne View Post
    PET is perfectly fine for manually driven cameras and some motor drives. Its not going to tear the back off the camera. Stop the FUD.
    Ilford were quite emphatic (on factory tours) that PET films can damage conventional camera wind mechanisms, and why they'd never use it again for 35mm. The films coated on PET are usually used in specialist cameras with slip clutches or other safety mechanisms that prevent damage in case of a film jam.

    For this reason the major manufacturers don't normally use PET base for films made for conventional camera use.

    The issue is more of stripped gears in wind mechanisms because the film doesn't break or the perforations tear. Some cameras are far more robust than others but many of the low to medium priced cameras made in the last few years don't have the build quality of similar cameras made in 70's & 80's.

    Ilford's comments were because there has been damage to cameras, so it wasn't scare mongering, it lead to their rapid withdrawal of their 72ex 35mm film, so they know what they were talking about.

    Ian

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    78
    I also have had my digibase returned by Dwaynes and it is sitting on my dresser waiting to find a place to send it. I was going to send it to york's but they send their c41 to dwaynes.

  8. #18
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,646
    Samy's store in Santa Barbara does dip and dunk E-6. $5 a roll plus return postage.

    www.samys805.com/monthly-specials/
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,544
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Ilford were quite emphatic (on factory tours) that PET films can damage conventional camera wind mechanisms, and why they'd never use it again for 35mm. The films coated on PET are usually used in specialist cameras with slip clutches or other safety mechanisms that prevent damage in case of a film jam.

    For this reason the major manufacturers don't normally use PET base for films made for conventional camera use.

    The issue is more of stripped gears in wind mechanisms because the film doesn't break or the perforations tear. Some cameras are far more robust than others but many of the low to medium priced cameras made in the last few years don't have the build quality of similar cameras made in 70's & 80's.

    Ilford's comments were because there has been damage to cameras, so it wasn't scare mongering, it lead to their rapid withdrawal of their 72ex 35mm film, so they know what they were talking about.

    Ian
    I was on one of the same trips to the Ilford factory and recall the discussion, which, when I was there, included the Chairman and the Sales director. There was a real concern of damage to cameras, and IIRC mention of someone like NASA having issues?

    One only has to think of a over-vigorous manual winding-on when No 36 or No 72 has been reached (I've torn conventional film that way before I knew better), and you have a problem when the film stays put! Clearly Dwaynes have similar concerns...maybe overcautious, but they know their equipment, and I wouldn't be very pleased if my film were damaged because of someone else's PET film being spliced in the same reel.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Horsham, PA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    751
    Poleyester film has the distinct possibility to damage auto-winding systems, depending on the force exerted by the winder, and where the force is exerted on the film. As for manual winding cameras, as long as you don't force it, it will be okay. The problem is that most people's reaction to a stuck wind lever will be to push it more, which will damage the mechanisms before the film.

    Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk
    "Panic not my child, the Great Yellow Father has your hand"--Larry Dressler

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