 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / March 2006ORWO b&w film?
>From an estate auction toay I got a couple of unused roles of ORWO (German) b&w film. One role 25ASA and the other 400ASA. Any available knowledge on this film? TIA, Collin > >From an estate auction toay I got a couple of unused > >roles of ORWO [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Collin ORWO is the old Russian zone part of AGFA. It recently became Filmotec at: http://www.filmotec.de/English_Site/english_site.html ORWO films are similar to some of the older Agfa films. Another source is the Massive Developing Chart at: http://www.digitaltruth.com/devchart.html Look for ORWO on the pull-down menu. These two sources should give you a starting point.  Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > ORWO is the old Russian zone part of AGFA. It recently > became Filmotec at: > http://www.filmotec.de/English_Site/english_site.html > ORWO films are similar to some of the older Agfa films. This is true for the old "NP15/22/27" films. The Filmotec products are newly developed emusions and have nothing to do with the old ORWO products (except named ORWO because this is an respected name in eastern countries). I recently tried the UN54 (100ASA) and the N74 (400 ASA) and found them excellent for pictorial work. The N74 is a film with two emulsion layers, one slow and one fast layer, the fast layer uses something similar to T-crystals. I've got results comparable to Delta 400. The good thing is that both films are _really_ inexpensive, the UN54 costs 0.66 Euro/m and the N74 costs 1.02 Euro/m. Both are available at 100"-rolls on request (this length isn't in the catalog). Both emulsions are current production, I have sensitometric data for D76 and DS-10 on request. Martin >> ORWO is the old Russian zone part of AGFA. It recently >> became Filmotec at: [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Martin Thanks Martin. Reliable information is difficult to obtain on some of the newer brands. I know you have some contact with these people. Signature--- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA dickburk@ix.netcom.com > newly developed emusions and have nothing to do with the old ORWO > products (except named ORWO because this is an respected name in eastern [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Both emulsions are current production, I have sensitometric data for D76 > and DS-10 on request. Hmmm...I was given two cans of both films and run some quick tests. I have no idea what kind of work you do (and to what standards) but IMO both UN 54 and (especially) the N74 can be only compared in terms of image quality to lower end products, such as Ilford Academy or FOMA but never to Ilford Delta films. UN54 appears to be exactly the same emulsion as the ancient (*really ancient*) ORWO NP55 movie stock. I have shot *tons* of NP 55 and have no love for that film, and - in terms of image quality (sharpness, grain, contrast, tolerances, etc.) - I'll take *any* emulsion by Kodak, Agfa or Ilford over NP55/UN54. Granted, NP55 was a more consistent product than its "consumer" counterparts (NP20, etc.) but that's not much to say... The N74 appears to be based on a 2 layer ORWO NP7 movie stock - also very dated - with the top sensitive layer being fine grain and the bottom sensitive layer being the usual ORWO grain, bigger than all the moons of Saturn combined. The film is not very sharp, prone to high contrast if overexposed/overdeveloped or push-processed. Tech specs are here are on the http://www.filmotec.de site IMO these films are on the lower end of the quality scale but - since people photograph for a variety of reasons, just like there are many reasons to own a Yugo - you may find them "fantastic." Yeah, they are cheap and perfectly suited for learning purposes for rank beginners, but that's pretty much all. Don't get me wrong, there is plenty of room for low-end products on the market, but there are *much* better choices of "old school" emulsions for serious photography than any past or present ORWO. I will also argue with your assertion that ORWO is "an respected name in eastern countries." Known - yes but respected..? Gimme a break... it was a collective sigh of relief when the Berlin wall fell down and Agfa and Kodak became freely available... ><eM eL>< > Hmmm...I was given two cans of both films and run some quick tests. > I have no idea what kind of work you do (and to what standards) but IMO both > UN 54 and (especially) the N74 can be only compared in terms of image > quality to lower end products, such as Ilford Academy or FOMA but never to > Ilford Delta films. I loaded two M-Leicas with Delta 400 and N74 and exposed both rolls (switching the lens) while going for a walk in the woods. Did the same with UN54 and APX100. After developing to the same CI using the same developer (with different times of course) I enlarged several exposures from both films to 20x30cm and compared them. Seems practical enough for me. Martin > Seems practical enough for me. Never mind, Martin. Michael's pathological bashing for everything from the East has been known for years on all Usenet photo newsgroups. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses <martin@jangowski.de> wrote: > Never mind, Martin. Michael's pathological bashing for everything from > the East has been known for years on all Usenet photo newsgroups. Oh, c'mon...pathology - big word! Instead of amateur psychology - tell us how well you know NP55, UN54, UN74 and NP7. Unfortunately the internet in general and USENET newsgroups in particular are often used by companies to crypto-market their products using paid and volunteer "fanboys." Photography groups are not immune to this practice... As for the word "bashing" (sans "pathological") I prefer "highly critical." But at least I have a lot of experience using ORWO and similar commie "products" which gives me a lot of comparative arguments. All you have to offer in this matter, are empty words. :-))) ><eM eL>< > Unfortunately the internet in general and USENET newsgroups in particular > are often used by companies to crypto-market their products using paid and > volunteer "fanboys." Not only do you have a pathological hatred of everything from the East, you also suffer from a most obvious case of paranoia as can be seen clearly from the above. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses <badbatz99@CUT_THIS_OUThotmail.com> wrote: >> Unfortunately the internet in general and USENET newsgroups in particular >> are often used by companies to crypto-market their products using paid [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you also suffer from a most obvious case of paranoia as can be seen > clearly from the above. Be a nice boy... Invectives are perhaps OK where you live but not on USENET. Control yourself or take your meds... ><eM eL>< > Be a nice boy... Invectives are perhaps OK where you live but not on USENET. > Control yourself or take your meds... *sigh* A troll with a burn-out syndrome. How utterly pathetic. SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > I loaded two M-Leicas with Delta 400 and N74 and exposed both rolls > (switching the lens) while going for a walk in the woods. Did the same > with UN54 and APX100. After developing to the same CI using the same > developer (with different times of course) I enlarged several exposures > from > both films to 20x30cm and compared them. Seems practical enough for me. You didn't answer any points I've raised in my post... Also, upon rereading your post I'm additionally amused by the part talking about grain in N74 > the fast layer uses something similar to T-crystals. It's either T-grain (delta, whatever) or not. And if it indeed is another way of obtaining T-grain, they should have patented it and should have made a really big deal out of it (because it would be a big deal in our circles...) Alas, IMO, it's pure PR... Remember FOMA? Some their products are banned from the US market precisely because of their T-grain patent infringements. ><eM eL>< > Remember FOMA? Some their products are banned from the US market precisely > because of their T-grain patent infringements. I've seen this claim before, but it seems to be contradicted by facts. Here's Foma's Web site, where they list their general-purpose film products: http://www.foma.cz/foma/produkt/foto.asp?seznam=cernob_fot All four of these films are available in the US from J&C (http://www.jandcphoto.com) and three of them are available in the US from Freestyle (http://www.freestylephoto.biz) and B&H (http://www.bhphotovideo.com). The specific claim I've heard is that Fomapan 200 is problematic in the US, but all three retailers carry this film. That said, I don't claim any special knowledge on this score; I just know what I see available (and what I've actually bought). I don't know what patents do and do not apply to these products, what legal battles have or have not been fought over them, or other business or legal details relating to these products. Perhaps the "banned" claims have always been false; or perhaps they were distortions of non-patent issues (such as naming issues; Fomapan Creative 200 seems to have been called Fomapan T200 at one point, and in fact that name still appears on the negatives I get from Creative 200); or perhaps the relevant Kodak patents have expired and so are no longer an issue; or perhaps something else is going on. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks.com> wrote in message news:867ud3- > That said, I don't claim any special knowledge on this score; I just know > what I see available (and what I've actually bought). I don't know what [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from Creative 200); or perhaps the relevant Kodak patents have expired and > so are no longer an issue; or perhaps something else is going on. FOMA "T" films (T200) were withdrawn form the US market around 2000 because Kodak slapped Foma with a T-grain patent/trademark infringement suit. I don't believe that Foma has actually gone to court, but rather they packed up and left the US market (at lest where it comes to "offending" emulsions.) What's officially sold now are "old technology" films, i.e. not tubular/delta grain. Actually, it gets even funnier because some people who used T200 say that the grain of FOMA T200 looks so different than - say - Kodak T-grain or Ilford Delta that the claim of any "tubular"nature of the grain could have been a mere FOMA PR ploy which backfired. Look for threads on that topic on photo.net and in other places. No idea whether FOMA did or didn't really have T-grain emulsions, so I'm neutral on this one, but the whole thing resembles a slapstick comedy. Apparently some companies in the US still sell (were selling..?) FOMA T200 as FOMA 200 without the "T" on the box. (I have found the last mention about this in 2003.) As an aside, in my opinion, the claim put forth in this thread re: tubularity of grain in N74 is a PR ploy because if they really stumbled upon the way to produce a "tubular" grain emulsions without infringing Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, etc. patents -- that would be a really big deal and would make them rich. I wish them luck, but from what I've seen both emulsions are of a dated ORWO ilk, average at best. The B&W photography market is rapidly going to hell in a basket so it would be great to have more quality choices. Sadly, for me Filmotec ain't it. ><eM eL>< > FOMA "T" films (T200) were withdrawn form the US market around 2000 because > Kodak slapped Foma with a T-grain patent/trademark infringement suit. So what? Another frivolous lawsuit. What chance could a small company stand against Kodak and their army of lawyers, totally regardless if Kodak's claims were founded or not? Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses Ralf R. Radermacher spake thus: >> FOMA "T" films (T200) were withdrawn form the US market around 2000 >> because Kodak slapped Foma with a T-grain patent/trademark [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > stand against Kodak and their army of lawyers, totally regardless if > Kodak's claims were founded or not? Rather proves his point, doesn't it? SignatureTo the arrogant putzes at NBC: Do we call the country Italia? Is its capital Roma? Were previous Olympics held in Moskva, Muenchen or Athine? Do we call it the "Shroud of Torino"? No! So learn to speak English already and call it Turin. - from someone's blog > Rather proves his point, doesn't it? I'm afraid I'm not quite with you on that. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses "eM eL" <badbatz99@CUT_THIS_OUThotmail.com> schrieb: Is this the radiation victim Scarpiti or another ill-advised poor fool? >FOMA "T" films (T200) were withdrawn form the US market around 2000 because >Kodak slapped Foma with a T-grain patent/trademark infringement suit. Due to trademark issuses regarding the "T", not the technology "as is". >As an aside, in my opinion, the claim put forth in this thread re: >tubularity of grain in N74 is a PR ploy Hardly. The manufacturer isn´t involved in this "ploy" and he his actually not interested in extending his direct user/customer relation very much beyond the point we see today. Well, as I learned yesterday it´s not that difficult to check films for "t-grains" - all you need is a high-enlargement microscope and a microtome cutter. >make them rich. I wish them luck, but from what I've seen both emulsions >are of a dated ORWO ilk, average at best. I very much doubt that - as much as I doubt that the films are actually coated in the Wolfen location - but coated elsewhere in custom manufacturing and just cut and confectioned by Filmotec themselves. Manufacturing and coating consulting as well as quality control of finished goods is part of Filmotecs business plan - they advice interested parties and factories in all stages of development and production of emulsions, films and papers. >The B&W photography market is >rapidly going to hell in a basket so it would be great to have more quality >choices. Sadly, for me Filmotec ain't it. I don´t actually believe you knew "Filmotec" a week ago. I contacted them yesterday and will place my order later today. Gruss, Roman Signature"Ich fuehle Portraits. ich schmecke Landschaften. Frei von Belichtungsmesser, und Tiefenschaerfe." (aus "Pecker") > Is this the radiation victim Scarpiti or another ill-advised poor > fool? I'm a little surprised you don't know him. He's earned himself a solid reputation as the McCarthy of all things photographic across the whole rec.photo hierarchy for many years. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > Is this the radiation victim Scarpiti or another ill-advised poor > > fool? > > I'm a little surprised you don't know him. He's earned himself a solid > reputation as the McCarthy of all things photographic across the whole > rec.photo hierarchy for many years. I doubt whetehr Foma emulsions are even remotely as good as Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. Film manufacturing is a high-tech business. The firms I just mentioned have spent millions and millions of dollars, pounds, and Yen on research. To imagine that some backwater Iron Curtain country could match the best of the West is ludicrous. > Ralf > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > I doubt whetehr Foma emulsions are even remotely as good as Ilford, > Kodak, or Fuji. I never said they are. In fact, I'd take an Ilford, Agfa or Forte over a Foma film anytime. OTOH, Foma could be making the greatest film in the known universe and dear old Michael would still be bashing them for the mere fact that they come from the East. Paranoia rarely cares about facts. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > I doubt whetehr Foma emulsions are even remotely as good as Ilford, > > Kodak, or Fuji. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > dear old Michael would still be bashing them for the mere fact that they > come from the East. Paranoia rarely cares about facts. There is zero chance that their products are the equal of Ilford, Kodak, or Fuji. You don't have to know much about Soviet-block production to understand why competitive capitalism produces better goods. Hell, even AGFA products were second-tier! How can Soviet-block leftovers be worth a sh.t? > Ralf > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > Hell, even AGFA products were second-tier! Oh, sure. As if further proof was needed that you are just as much of a waste of time as your trolling friends emel and Crapitti. Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses > > Hell, even AGFA products were second-tier! > > Oh, sure. As if further proof was needed that you are just as much of a > waste of time as your trolling friends emel and Crapitti. Agfa B&W films and papers were second-tier. Period. > Ralf > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 > Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses For F grade photographers # #Ralf R. Radermacher wrote: #> #> > Hell, even AGFA products were second-tier! #> #> Oh, sure. As if further proof was needed that you are just as much of a #> waste of time as your trolling friends emel and Crapitti. # #Agfa B&W films and papers were second-tier. Period. # #> #> Ralf #> #> -- #> Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany #> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de #> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 #> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses many years ago I wedded very nice girl (then). All my photos were taken on Agfacolor 80S, Agfachrome 50S and Ilford HP5 or HP4, can't remember. Deliberately I rejected Ektachromes and Kodacolor films. The reason - MUCH better results. #UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote: # #> Hell, even AGFA products were second-tier! # #Oh, sure. As if further proof was needed that you are just as much of a #waste of time as your trolling friends emel and Crapitti. # #Ralf > many years ago I wedded very nice girl (then). > All my photos were taken on Agfacolor 80S, Agfachrome 50S and Ilford > HP5 or HP4, can't remember. > Deliberately I rejected Ektachromes and Kodacolor films. > The reason - MUCH better results. I have been comparative-testing materials since 1968 or so. I have used all the major brands (Adox, Ilford, Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, Ansco, dPont, Tetenal, Paterson, Plymouth-Ethol, etc.) of films, papers, and developers. Ilford HP4 was inferior to Tri-X. HP5, when it came out in 1979 or so, was a huge improvement over HP4. I switched from Tri-X to HP5 at that time, even though I had used HP4 sporadically despite its inferiority to Tri-X. Agfa papers, but not their films, have been available in the US for decades. One can only surmise that their films were not competitive with Kodak's. That was confirmed for me when I tried the new 'improved' APX 400 last year. It was not even close to Tri-X. In fact, APX 400 is horribly grainy. It looks like a 1950s-era film, at best. Although I never used Portriga Rapid, I was never able to get decent prints with Brovira. duPont, Kodak, and Ilford papers were very similar, but not rovira. Something about its curve made it impossible for me to get highlight detail with negatives that printed just fine with other papers. Rodinal is crap. > #UC <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote: > # [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > # > #Ralf Agfa's APX25 and APX100 were probably their best products during the entire run. KC8TKA > Is this the radiation victim Scarpiti or another ill-advised poor > fool? Hmmm... Comment like this makes you a fool no matter what follows... Wanna talk here - talk, but without arguments ad personam and invectives. Wanna use invectives and arguments ad personam? Find a different forum... > Manufacturing and coating consulting as well as quality control of > finished goods is part of Filmotecs business plan - they advice > interested parties and factories in all stages of development and > production of emulsions, films and papers. I admire your familiarity with their business plan... ><eM eL>< > FOMA "T" films (T200) were withdrawn form the US market around 2000 because > Kodak slapped Foma with a T-grain patent/trademark infringement suit. Do you have a reference to an actual news story or press release about this? I'm not trying to challenge the claim, just get solid information rather than Usenet hearsay. Also, patent and trademark disputes are two very different things. If it was a trademark dispute only, then merely changing the packaging (as they've done) would solve the problem. > What's officially sold now are "old technology" films, i.e. not > tubular/delta grain. ... > Apparently some companies in the > US still sell (were selling..?) FOMA T200 as FOMA 200 without the "T" on the > box. (I have found the last mention about this in 2003.) I can't speak to the question of what technology is actually used, but as I posted earlier, Foma films *ARE* available in the US (I've bought them), and the markings on the negatives from Fomapan Creative 200 include the string "T200". Thus, I'm very skeptical of the claim that Foma's changed their ISO 200 emulsion from a T-grain to a conventional emulsion. Based on what I've seen, it appears instead that they've simply changed the name on the box from "Fomapan T200" to "Fomapan Creative 200." My guess is that either what's currently being sold really is a T-grain film or that they've never sold a T-grain film (at least, not in ISO 200). SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking > > FOMA "T" films (T200) were withdrawn form the US market around 2000 because > > Kodak slapped Foma with a T-grain patent/trademark infringement suit. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > either what's currently being sold really is a T-grain film or that > they've never sold a T-grain film (at least, not in ISO 200). They'd be lucky to make an O-grained film.... > -- > Rod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com > http://www.rodsbooks.com > Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks.com> wrote in message news:8lq0e3-> Do you have a reference to an actual news story or press release about > this? I'm not trying to challenge the claim, just get solid information > rather than Usenet hearsay. Not everything on USENET is hearsay, but whatever makes you happy... As for the news references, you'll need to find the actual references yourself. I remember stories about it in Shutterbug, Photo Techniques and -- perhaps, but I'm not certain -- in Pop Photo. (All in the US, of course.) I have since moved so my stash of industry rags is gone and on-line archives in Shutterbug don't (apparently) go that far back. Using search engines is difficult because FOMA is also the name of a cellular (UMTS) telephony standard in Japan :-) I'll ask around, tho. > Also, patent and trademark disputes are two very different things. If it > was a trademark dispute only, then merely changing the packaging (as > they've done) would solve the problem. Yes. No. I don't know. :-) In any event, whatever triggered the exodus of Foma from the US (patent, trademark suit or a threat alone) must have been scary enough for them. > I can't speak to the question of what technology is actually used, but as > I posted earlier, Foma films *ARE* available in the US (I've bought them), [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > either what's currently being sold really is a T-grain film or that > they've never sold a T-grain film (at least, not in ISO 200). Some people say the same (on the 'net, again, sorry - there are some sources on the 'net I trust...) Generally there is a lot of doubt about t/delta grain in films outside the big three (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) because of the multitude of patents and expensive R&D which would be difficult to recoup because of low sales, etc. ><eM eL>< > "Rod Smith" <rodsmith@nessus.rodsbooks.com> wrote in message news:8lq0e3-> > Do you have a reference to an actual news story or press release about [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > yourself. I remember stories about it in Shutterbug, Photo Techniques and -- > perhaps, but I'm not certain -- in Pop Photo. If the information was published in photo magazines then it's probably reliable. FWIW, I did some digging and found a few Usenet and other forum posts about this dating back as early as 1997, but they're all lacking detail and attribution. > Generally there is a lot of doubt about t/delta grain in films outside the > big three (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) because of the multitude of patents and > expensive R&D which would be difficult to recoup because of low sales, etc. Concerning patents, Kodak T-grain films date back to at least 1988 (T-Max 3200; http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/kodakHistory/1980_1989.shtml). That means that the basic T-grain patents are likely to be at least this old, which in turn means they've probably already expired. (Patents issued in the US at that time lasted for 17 years.) I haven't actually done a patent search, though. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking >> I loaded two M-Leicas with Delta 400 and N74 and exposed both rolls >> (switching the lens) while going for a walk in the woods. Did the same >> with UN54 and APX100. After developing to the same CI using the same >> developer (with different times of course) I enlarged several exposures >> from >> both films to 20x30cm and compared them. Seems practical enough for me. > You didn't answer any points I've raised in my post... > Also, upon rereading your post I'm additionally amused by the part talking > about grain in N74 Several experienced B&W photographers weren't able to sort a stack of mixed enlargements (24x36 to 20x30cm) into a stack of N74 and a stack of Delta400 exposures with any accuracy, that's enough for me to talk about "comparable quality". It may be of historic interest to listen to your experiences with long gone original ORWO materials, but this was made with fresh film and the factory rep I talked to told me that is would be impossible to make the old ORWO emulsions any more, because it would be not possible to meet current environment standards with the old recipes. I'm fairly sure that _you_ haven't seen any Filmotec film in your life, so I judge your comments accordingly. >> the fast layer uses something similar to T-crystals. > It's either T-grain (delta, whatever) or not. And if it indeed is another > way of obtaining T-grain, they should have patented it and should have made > a really big deal out of it (because it would be a big deal in our > circles...) Alas, IMO, it's pure PR... I was told that T-Grain is a trade mark of Kodak, so it's not very astonishing that nobody else uses it. The usage of similar technology can't be very problematic when 2/3 of the remaining producers of B&W material uses it... Martin > >From an estate auction toay I got a couple of unused roles of ORWO > (German) b&w film. One role 25ASA and the other 400ASA. > > Any available knowledge on this film? NP15 and NP27..? Of what vintage..? The ORWO films have changed very little over the years and their processing in many B&W developers, including Rodinal and its derivatives/copies, other ORWO/Agfa chemistry such as Atomal/A49 and - of course - D76, D23, etc. is well documented. There is a lot of info on the net, including some - sometimes funky "cultist" - stuff in English :-))) Generally NP15 (25ASA) was a fine-grain, sharp but contrasty film very intolerant of over/under exposure and the NP27 (ASA 400) was a thick, big grain emulsion, not very sharp and difficult to push process because of fogging and contrast. If you have any specific questions - ask here. I grew up with ORWO (by necessity...) ><eM eL>< > I grew up with ORWO (by > necessity...) Actually, you had some choice I presume - Svema 64 and couple of Fotopans :) cheers alkos Signature"go out, burn some film!" 24x36 at op pl http://pad.go.pl > Actually, you had some choice I presume - Svema 64 and couple of Fotopans > :) Well...FOTOPAN (Polish film) was really bad (even for fanboys of the bizarre and unusual :-))) In the 60s it was an emulsion than any respectable film maker would be ashamed of in 1935. The Soviet brand was a tad better, but very inconsistent: I have seen a number of films only partially coated with emulsion and one with a big human hair embedded in the photosensitive layer. All these films were not sharp, would fog easily, had strange contrast characteristics (too soft or too hard) and were very inconsistent from batch to batch. And then there was FORTE - a bit too contrasty in my book but not too bad for the '70s - IMO preferable to any of the above films. ><eM eL><There's no place like 127.0.0.1>< > Well...FOTOPAN (Polish film) was really bad (even for fanboys of the bizarre > and unusual :-))) In the 60s it was an emulsion than any respectable film > maker would be ashamed of in 1935. The Soviet brand was a tad better, but > very inconsistent: From my limited experience (i've started playing with photography in mid nineties), it was on the contrary. Svema films were better by only one factor: I was able to buy dozens of non-spooled rolls for a song, directly from private importers on the town's market ;) > I have seen a number of films only partially coated with > emulsion I've seen one like that too. After development. :( > and one with a big human hair embedded in the photosensitive > layer. Funny. Was it curly? ;-) > All these films were not sharp, would fog easily, had strange contrast > characteristics (too soft or too hard) and were very inconsistent from batch > to batch. Indeed. cheers, the fanboy of the bizarre and unusual, alkos :) Signature"go out, burn some film!" 24x36 at op pl http://pad.go.pl "alkos" <24x36@ANTISPAMop.pl> wrote ... the fanboy of the bizarre and unusual ... > http://pad.go.pl This is some superb photography. Recommended. Really recommended. -- Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics. To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com Fstop timer - http://www.nolindan.com/da/fstop/index.htm >>http://pad.go.pl > > This is some superb photography. Recommended. > > Really recommended. Thanx :D cheers alkos Signature"go out, burn some film!" 24x36 at op pl http://pad.go.pl > This is some superb photography. Recommended. > > Really recommended. You can say that again. Really. :-) Ralf SignatureRalf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses just remember one of Fotopan films was licensed from Ilford HP-4. #"alkos" <24x36@ANTISPAMop.pl> wrote in message #news:du97ec$k3e$1@news.onet.pl... #> Actually, you had some choice I presume - Svema 64 and couple of Fotopans #> :) # #Well...FOTOPAN (Polish film) was really bad (even for fanboys of the bizarre #and unusual :-))) In the 60s it was an emulsion than any respectable film #maker would be ashamed of in 1935. The Soviet brand was a tad better, but #very inconsistent: I have seen a number of films only partially coated with #emulsion and one with a big human hair embedded in the photosensitive layer. #All these films were not sharp, would fog easily, had strange contrast #characteristics (too soft or too hard) and were very inconsistent from batch #to batch. # #And then there was FORTE - a bit too contrasty in my book but not too bad #for the '70s - IMO preferable to any of the above films. > just remember one of Fotopan films was licensed from Ilford HP-4. Well...But that's the late '70s / early 80s story (if at all...) I started playing with photography around 1968 and got really serious about it in 1970. Fotopan (there were two "F" and "S" 18 and 22 DIN respectively, if my memory serves me) THEN was a piece of crap (and I'm being very charitable here...) Ilford HP4 was then my material of choice but with an average salary of about $50/month (black market "fair" exchange rate) one couldn't buy many of these :-))) and I can tell you that no Fotopan EVER has even came close to HP4. Foton photo paper OTOH was OK - deep blacks, nice gloss, lotsa silver - better than ORWO, FOMA or FORTEPAN, approaching older Agfas in image quality (if not consistency and QC...) ><eM eL><There's no place like 127.0.0.1>< >>From an estate auction toay I got a couple of unused roles of ORWO > (German) b&w film. One role 25ASA and the other 400ASA. > > Any available knowledge on this film? In addition to what others have already posted, for a while ORWO was selling rebadged Ilford films (ISO 125 and 400). I don't believe your ISO 25 film could be that, but the 400 could conceivably be rebadged HP5+. The exact film name could help you figure out what it is, but I'm not enough of an expert on this to make that determination with certainty. SignatureRod Smith, rodsmith@rodsbooks.com http://www.rodsbooks.com Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking Probasbly not worth bothering with. > >From an estate auction toay I got a couple of unused roles of ORWO > (German) b&w film. One role 25ASA and the other 400ASA. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Collin Probably not. But I was just curious. Collin >>From an estate auction toay I got a couple of unused roles of ORWO > (German) b&w film. One role 25ASA and the other 400ASA. > > Any available knowledge on this film? Freestyle was selling ORWO for a while. It was crap. High fog level, evidence of moisture in storage damage, excess curl. I had great hopes for it gecause it claimed to be very similar to Adox KB14, 17 and 21 films which were superb, but the ORWO I tried was terrible. > TIA, > > Collin |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.