 |
 | 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 / Medium format / November 2006Getting back into medium format
Hi everyone. I'm an amateur who has not done a lot of photography in the past few years, but recently got a digital Nikon on impulse and played again, and ...was frustrated by cheapish digital SLR quality, then looked over some of my old F4/Bronica MF stuff and sighed a bit. You don't get the bite of either of those, particularly the later, from a D50 :-(. Sadly I no longer have the Bronica. Anyway one thing led to another, and I've just got a Coolscan 9000 so I can play with the old stuff. So of course I'd now like to shoot some MF again, in addition to revisiting 35mm film of course. I think I'll try out 6x7 this time. I have a couple of questions, first is probably a FAQ, I've seen it discussed quite a bit, but I'd like a current view if people don't mind making a brief comment. If I buy MF 120 film gear is there realistic expectation of having film available for that much longer? Digital seems to be sweeping in at a pace, yet I'd like to spend some more time with film and maybe get few Cibachromes printed if that's going to be possible. A good choice for what I want to do seems to be the Mamiya RZ67 II, don't mind the size, and I can get a reasonable basic setup used for around UKP 1K. I'm thinking that if film disappears in the future, and MF digital backs get cheaper, then maybe this camera would let me stay with what I've bought rather than use it as a paperweight. If that logic seems OK I'd welcome pointers to the best likely UK sources of used Mamiya kit, found a few already but recommendations welcome. Steve Steve Wrote: > Hi everyone. I'm an amateur who has not done a lot of photography in > the past few years, but recently got a digital Nikon on impulse and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Steve First, I'm only guessing, and since I have been shooting MF for 2 yr now, the following is slanted as someone hoping to keep shooting MF. I'd guess that we get top quality film for at least two more years Fuji and Kodak still do R&D for film, and the factories will have som inertia just from a capital investment perspective. BUT 220 film is getting harder to come by, Kodak & Fuji have stoppe some lines. Developing is getting more expensive as small shops clos up. The great thing is that the gear has gotten very inexpensive, an the quality is about equal to $7k digicams. Tough choice, because th gear will be next to worthless when you're done.... -Mar -- MASL > BUT 220 film is getting harder to come by, Kodak & Fuji have stopped > some lines. Indeed. Now as I'm getting my first MF camera that could use 220 film, it is not very well available in Finland. It can be developed, though. 120 is still pretty abundant and is what I use. Regarding development, right now it's easily available. When it ceases to be available I will have stocked myself up with chemicals and 120 roll films, and limit myself to doing B/W photography. Right now I develop B/W myself and have color developed by a lab. >> BUT 220 film is getting harder to come by, Kodak & Fuji have stopped >> some lines. I guessed 120 backs were the way to go under the circumstances, useful information thanks. Steve 220 film is not hard to get ahold of...unless your in some desalet area.....kodak anf fuji just came out with new film...i shoot Fuji PRO 160 S 220 and have for a year now....i buy by the brick or case depending on how musch room i have in my little fridge....i have talked wit Fuji reps and they don't see 220 or 120 stopping...and there are still labs for processing as well, i have a great one in CEDAR FALLS, IA after my lab here stop film and went all digital...there loss.. if you can't get 220 film, email me and i'llgive ya my suppier.....best prices around, and it is not gray film...freash right from Fuji or kodak as far as getting back into MF how about getting a MAMIYA C330......Great little camera..i started out with one then as i got busier i went to Hasselblad...... > 220 film is not hard to get ahold of...unless your in some desalet > area.....kodak anf fuji just came out with new film...i shoot Fuji PRO [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > C330......Great little camera..i started out with one then as i got > busier i went to Hasselblad...... Go on, admit it. You were drunk when you typed that. ;-) nope....wasn't drunk....film in120 and 220 is very easy to get a hold of...at least here in WISCONSIN it is...so i will ot admit i was drunk...sorry.....like isaid email me and i'llgive you my supplier.....they ship to where ever > as far as getting back into MF how about getting a MAMIYA > C330......Great little camera..i started out with one then as i got > busier i went to Hasselblad...... C330... little camera? Eh? Yeah, like my Shen-Hao 4x5. LOL. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > If I buy MF 120 film gear is there realistic expectation of having > film available for that much longer? Define "much longer" first? A lot was said a while ago about Fuji giving up on velvia 50. Well, it's back: fuji has decided to make it available for a while longer. That's good news in anyone's language. Will it last forever? Of course not! Will it last long enough for you to take a lot of enjoyment out of your MF gear? My guess is: heck, yeah! > Digital seems to be sweeping in > at a pace, yet I'd like to spend some more time with film and maybe > get few Cibachromes printed if that's going to be possible. Of course it is possible. And will be for quite a while yet. Enjoy it. And with the ls9000 you can do a lot in terms of prep for digital printing, so give that a go as well. > around UKP 1K. I'm thinking that if film disappears in the future, > and MF digital backs get cheaper, then maybe this camera would let me > stay with what I've bought rather than use it as a paperweight. My logic too in selecting the rb67. Would have gone for a rz if it had been affordable at the time. That's the whole idea ebhind these "system" cameras: you buy the basics then upgrade as needed and when available. Don't expect Mamiya to keep supporting it now that they got the ZD out in force. But there will be 2nd-hand gear available for a long time yet. > that logic seems OK I'd welcome pointers to the best likely UK sources > of used Mamiya kit, found a few already but recommendations welcome. Dunno about the UK. I get my gear from ebay, then send it over to a mechanic to get a CLA. Every once in a while I get some gear from a dealer depending on availability, prices, etc. So far, it's working fine. >Define "much longer" first? Yea, good point. Oh I suppose I was hoping for maybe 5 years or so. Let's hope I suppose. >Will it last forever? Of course not! >Will it last long enough for you to take a lot of >enjoyment out of your MF gear? My guess is: >heck, yeah! Well that's positive. The Ebay thing is interesting. 1K sounds a lot of money to spend there, never looked there for stuff of that value before, but maybe I shouldn't rule it out. Thanks for those helpful comments! Steve >The Ebay thing is interesting. 1K sounds a lot of money to spend >there, never looked there for stuff of that value before, but maybe I >shouldn't rule it out. Shop carefully. I got a very old but very serviceable Pentax 67, with 105 mm lens and TTL prism, for $430. My Pentax 645 kit (another ebay special) set me back around $600, but that was five years ago and was in better cosmetic condition. Forget about putting digital backs on MF cameras, though. It's just not terribly practical, and is *very* expensive. I suspect film will be available for another few years, but you may have to go to a place like BH Photo to get it. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Forget about putting digital backs on MF cameras, >though. It's just not terribly practical, and is *very* >expensive. That's what everyone said about digital 35mm-format SLR's 7 years ago. I'll continue to shoot film stock until I can't get it anymore. At some point, the digital market will ramp up in the MF space and become the predominant technology for that format. You can only effectively cram so many photosites on a 35mm-format sensor, after all. I have no problem imagining that MF digital backs will be available for the price of today's pro-series DSLR's. That may not be "affordable" for everyone, but then the product markets will have realigned - small format DSLRs for the enthusiast, and MF digital for the pros and well-heeled amateur.  SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net >>Forget about putting digital backs on MF cameras, >>though. It's just not terribly practical, and is *very* [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > realigned - small format DSLRs for the enthusiast, and MF digital for > the pros and well-heeled amateur. I'd be ecstatic if your hopes are realized, but I think you're being optimistic. I mean, what sort of time frames are you talking about? Full-frame (35 mm) digital is still $2500, which represents a very small market, I would imagine. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >Full-frame (35 mm) digital is still $2500, which >represents a very small market, I would imagine. And in 1994, you were paying $10K for a Kodak DCS 420 and 1.5 Mpix. Or 6Mpix from the DCS 460 at around $30K. Hasselblad's got a 16.7Mpix digital MF back for under ten grand now. Rollei's got a bundle that includes a 6008AF autofocus/autoexposure body, waistlevel finder, handgripd, 16Mpix PhaseOne square-format back (4080x4080), and 80mm Xenotar lens for right about $15K. A year ago, everyone was all squiffy about how Canon had broke the $10K barrier for 16MPix in a 35mm-format SLR. Debuted at eight grand, now down to a street price of just over six and a half. As yields get higher, and volume gets bigger, the prices will get cheaper. Hopefully, the Kodak/Creo/Leafs and PhaseOnes of the world will still remember those old modular system beasts. SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net Recently, Rob Novak <rob.novak@cmpg.org> posted: >> Full-frame (35 mm) digital is still $2500, which >> represents a very small market, I would imagine. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > cheaper. Hopefully, the Kodak/Creo/Leafs and PhaseOnes of the world > will still remember those old modular system beasts. I think your assessment is right on target. That is one reason why I invested in (and continue to invest in) a modular MF camera that already has available digital components. While I don't think the price/performance curve is where I want it today, I expect that I will be able to buy a suitable digital back for the camera within a few years' time. In the mean time, I'm enjoying the use of the camera with film immensely. ;-) Neil > In the mean time, I'm enjoying the use of the camera with film >immensely. ;-) Yes, I will definitely join you "in the mean time" :-). Knowing the way electronics works I also guess that sensor prices will come down over the next 5 years or so. And even if the world moves away from the RZ67 I plan to get, what effect all this on secondhand values of the many no doubt still-working current model digital backs. If new backs came down to say 2-3K here, I can see one of today's model RB67 digital backs being available used at amateur level pricing, just like the "pro" camera itself is today. Steve > Yea, good point. Oh I suppose I was hoping for maybe 5 years or so. > Let's hope I suppose. No need to hope: film will definitely be around for another 5 years. 10, I wouldn't hazard a guess. But 5? Yup. You may not have the wide choice you have today, but B&W will be around then for sure and there will be a few colour varieties still going. Heck, both Kodak and Fuji were still issuing new emulsions as recently as start of 2006! So, go ahead with confidence that you got at least another 5 years. My guess is that boutique markets being what they are, there will be film for a looong time after that. Until very recently you could get film in formats whose gear hasn't been sold for many, many decades. Now, if someone picked Kodachrome from Kodak's ashes and ran K25 once again... I don't care which name, just make it available again, darn it! > The Ebay thing is interesting. 1K sounds a lot of money to spend > there, never looked there for stuff of that value before, but maybe I > shouldn't rule it out. Shop wisely and bid your time. I got my gear for a lot less than that. It cost me another 200 or so to get it all CLA, but in all it was less than 1K. > Now, if someone picked Kodachrome from Kodak's ashes > and ran K25 once again... I don't care which name, just > make it available again, darn it! They won't do it. Kodachrome died because of the polution produced by the processing plants. I suspect Kodak had something to do with spreading that information :-) E6 based films are unfortunately in the consumer's eye, just as good, and "do not threaten the enviornment". Personaly, I'd be happy if they produced Ektar 25 again. IMHO it was the best color negative film ever produced for general photography. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > They won't do it. Kodachrome died because of the polution produced by the > processing plants. I suspect Kodak had something to do with spreading that > information :-) On the other hand, us younger people have no recollection of any pollution-related problems in photography... > On the other hand, us younger people have no recollection of any > pollution-related problems in photography... There are and always have been. Most people don't know or care because the responsability is not on them, they send their processing out and the processors have to take whatever steps necessary to reduce or eliminate polution. They take care of it, they pay the price and you pay them. Disposal of the chemicals and wash water from black and white and color processing by dumping it "down the drain" is illegal in most places. Home processors may be excempt, or it may be that no one bothers to enforce the law for such small quantities. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > There are and always have been. Most people don't know or care because the > responsability is not on them, they send their processing out and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Home processors may be excempt, or it may be that no one bothers to enforce > the law for such small quantities. This is one of the things that led to my getting out of the photography business. I was having the county getting on my case about a piddly 10 gallons per month going down the drain. I did recover silver from B&W chemistry, but it would have cost me thousands of dollars to do that for the color printing end of things. I pointed out that Weyerhaeuser dumped untold gallons of waste into the local bay each day, but that didn't matter. > > There are and always have been. Most people don't know or care because the > > responsability is not on them, they send their processing out and [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I pointed out that Weyerhaeuser dumped untold gallons of waste into the > local bay each day, but that didn't matter. Look, the whiole argument of pollution against film is dumab as can be. the silicon wafer industry that is needed for the alternative, digital, is much, much worse than film ever was. By a very long margin. And no one gives a hoot about it! > Look, the whiole argument of pollution against film is dumab > as can be. the silicon wafer industry that is needed for the > alternative, digital, is much, much worse than film ever was. > By a very long margin. And no one gives a hoot about it! Dumb does not stop it. For example, there is more mercury in one 40 watt flourescent light than all the mercury batteries most camera stores sold in a year. No one was going to ban flourescent lights, so they banned the batteries instead. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > No one was going to ban flourescent lights, so they banned the batteries > instead. And barometers FFS! >> No one was going to ban flourescent lights, so they banned the batteries >> instead. > >And barometers FFS! I can't say I've seen any barometers lately, so I don't know, but the mercury sphygmomanometers have all but disappeared in France and Germany. When I first noticed that about a year ago, I asked why, and was told that they were no longer allowed to sell mercury-column instruments. > > Look, the whiole argument of pollution against film is dumab > > as can be. the silicon wafer industry that is needed for the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > flourescent light than all the mercury batteries most camera stores > sold in a year. My number show this not to be the case, a 40 watt bulb has about 12mg of mercury a button battery can have up to 11 mg, I think most camera stores likely sold more then one battery. Scott > My number show this not to be the case, a 40 watt bulb has about 12mg > of mercury [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Scott Regardless of who is right obviously disposal of the bulbs should carry the same sort of restrictions, far less batteries are sold than bulbs. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >> My number show this not to be the case, a 40 watt bulb has about 12mg >> of mercury [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Regardless of who is right obviously disposal of the bulbs should carry > the same sort of restrictions, far less batteries are sold than bulbs. It may be that the energy savings of running fluorescent bulbs vs. incandescent makes up for the added pollution cost of the bulbs themselves. Here's a reference that claims that the electricity saved results in less mercury release than the mercury in the bulb. http://www.achd.net/airqual/pubs/pdf/mercury04.pdf David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Look, the whiole argument of pollution against film is dumab > as can be. the silicon wafer industry that is needed for the > alternative, digital, is much, much worse than film ever was. > By a very long margin. And no one gives a hoot about it! I would love to see your calculation on this, the amount of pollution that a digital camera is responsible for. My camera use about 4 cm^2 of silicon for the sensor, the total chemicals to process this area is about 180 grams. You can find the break down here <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Williams"%20intitle:"The%201.7%20Kil ogram%20Microchip:%20Energy%20and%20Material%20Use%20in%20..."%20&hl=en&lr=&safe =off&oi=scholarr> Now it is clearly not as simple as a total amount of chemicals used for processing the sensor chips vs. film but it at least does give a handle of the magnitude that we are talking about. The really bad chemicals used in the manufacture of the sensors is used in a extremely small levels, for example the amount of phosphine used for my sensor was about 0.00007 grams. Figure this camera is going to keep 500 rolls of film from being used and you are looking at about a 1/3 of a gram of chemicals used for the sensor to each roll of film not used. I would be willing to bet that that roll of film pollutes a whole lot more then the 1/3 grams it took to replace it. Scott > Now it is clearly not as simple as a total amount of chemicals used for > processing the sensor chips vs. film but it at least does give a handle [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be willing to bet that that roll of film pollutes a whole lot more then > the 1/3 grams it took to replace it. Scott... the phosphine stat is almost irrelevant. Phosphine (AFAIK) is used as a dopant, and only miniscule amounds of dopant are required. Phosphine, arsine, boron triflouride -- typical dopant gases -- are all intensely toxic. A few parts per billion of arsine will kill you. I know that plasma etch has replaced acid baths in several steps, but back when I worked at Intel (way, way back) the acid baths were ubiquitous, and water consumption was *enormous*. One of them was even called "Piranha" because of its amazing ability to dissolve just about anything. It was some mix of acids -- I forget exactly which -- but as I recall, sulfuric, nitric and hydroflouric were all used at various processing steps. Silicon dioxide is exceptionally inert, so it takes a very reactive agent to attack it. Your 1/3 of a gram figure is quite misleading -- you haven't considered the masks that have to be laid down, then later etched away. You haven't considered water for cooling the equipment, the liquid nitrogen used for the vacuum systems, or the energy consumption of all that equipment. (Eg. an ion implanter weighs several tons and consumes at least 10-15 KW.) Another issue is the health of employees who had to work in close proximity to all those chemicals. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >One of them was even called "Piranha" because >of its amazing ability to dissolve just about anything. >It was some mix of acids -- I forget exactly which -- >but as I recall, sulfuric, nitric and hydroflouric >were all used at various processing steps. Pirhana solution is a heated bath of fuming sulfuric acid and 30% hydrogen peroxide, typically 3:1. It denatures organics extremely aggressively. SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net > >One of them was even called "Piranha" because > >of its amazing ability to dissolve just about anything. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Pirhana solution is a heated bath of fuming sulfuric acid and 30% > hydrogen peroxide, typically 3:1. Yowzah... > It denatures organics extremely aggressively. Yeah, well, it would.... Peter >>One of them was even called "Piranha" because >>of its amazing ability to dissolve just about anything. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > hydrogen peroxide, typically 3:1. It denatures organics extremely > aggressively. So, spilling it in your lap during chemistry lab would be a bad thing? > So, spilling it in your lap during chemistry lab would be a bad thing? depends on how attached you're to it... :-) Recently, Noons <wizofoz2k@yahoo.com.au> posted: >> So, spilling it in your lap during chemistry lab would be a bad >> thing? > > depends on how attached you're to it... Safe to say not nearly a s attached as before the spill... ;-) Neil >So, spilling it in your lap during chemistry lab would be a bad thing? You could say that. http://yarchive.net/chem/piranha_solution.html Scroll to the last message in the thread. SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net > > Now it is clearly not as simple as a total amount of chemicals used for > > processing the sensor chips vs. film but it at least does give a handle [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > (way, way back) the acid baths were ubiquitous, > and water consumption was *enormous*. > One of them was even called "Piranha" because > of its amazing ability to dissolve just about anything. > It was some mix of acids -- I forget exactly which -- > but as I recall, sulfuric, nitric and hydroflouric > were all used at various processing steps. All adding up to about 15 grams/cm^2 > Silicon dioxide is exceptionally inert, so it takes > a very reactive agent to attack it. > > Your 1/3 of a gram figure is quite misleading -- > you haven't considered the masks that have to > be laid down, then later etched away. I show about 1.5 grams for the photolithographic chemicals, they are put on very thin. >You > haven't considered water for cooling the > equipment, the liquid nitrogen used for the > vacuum systems, or the energy consumption > of all that equipment. (Eg. an ion implanter weighs > several tons and consumes at least 10-15 KW.) Power is 1.6 KWh/cm^ so figure about 6.4 HWh for my sensor. This is far less power then I use in a typical day. > Another issue is the health of employees who had > to work in close proximity to all those chemicals. I don't have data on worker's heath, but I did work in a building that did some small IC processing. And whereas it is an issue I would be interested to know how photo-chemicals used world wide compared for heath risks. Scott <...> > Power is 1.6 KWh/cm^ so figure about 6.4 HWh for my sensor. > This is far less power then I use in a typical day. There are many other chips in the camera than just the detector. The image processor, the memory chips, and the colour LCD are all extra when compared to a modern AF camera. (Everything is extra when compared to my mechanical cameras from the fifties...) >> Another issue is the health of employees who had >> to work in close proximity to all those chemicals. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be interested to know how photo-chemicals used world wide compared > for heath risks. B&W chemicals are pretty benign. Most problematic is the fixer, because it contains heavy metals (silver), which may in the long run cause neurological problems. Commercial laboratories harvest and recycle it. I'm not familiar with colour chemicals. -- Lassi > B&W chemicals are pretty benign. Most problematic is the fixer, because > it contains heavy metals (silver), which may in the long run cause > neurological problems. Commercial laboratories harvest and recycle it. Silver is a real problem for waste treatment plants. Many areas use some sort of bacteria to brake down solid waste and some of the photographic chemicals kill the bacteria. > I'm not familiar with colour chemicals. Basicly the same stuff, except that ALL of the silver goes "down the drain". Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ Recently, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> posted: >> B&W chemicals are pretty benign. Most problematic is the fixer, >> because it contains heavy metals (silver), which may in the long run [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Basicly the same stuff, except that ALL of the silver goes "down the > drain". Are there many current color films that use silver? Neil > Recently, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> posted: >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> > Are there many current color films that use silver? All of them, I thought... David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > > Recently, Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm@mendelson.com> posted: > >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > All of them, I thought... Yup that is my understanding. Silver is still the light sensitive component but gets washed away and dye is left. Or in the case of Kodachrome I believe the dye is added as part of the processing and some of the silver remains. Scott > Yup that is my understanding. Silver is still the light sensitive > component but gets washed away and dye is left. Or in the case of > Kodachrome I believe the dye is added as part of the processing and > some of the silver remains. No. The difference between Kodachrome and Ektachrome type films is where the dye comes from. In Kodachrome, the dye is added, in Ektachrome the dye is already there, coupled to the silver. The Kodachrome process is therefore much more involved. The Ektachrome and negative film are very similar in structure. The film consists of three layers each sensative to a primary color (red,green, blue) coupled with the appropriate dyes. Negative film has magenta, cyan, and yellow dye, Ektachrome film has red, green, and blue. Some Fuji slide film has a second (but different) red layer. Ektachrome is first exposed in a camera and then developed with a developer similar to a black and white developer. This produces a regular silver negative in each of the layers. Then the film is exposed again. The previously non exposed film is used to create a negative of the already developed negative image, so it will be a positive. This is where the negative and Ektachome type film are processed similarly. The now exposed film is developed with a color developer which releases the dye from the silver that is developed. The film is then bleached, which makes the developed silver soluable in fixer. The film is then fixed removing all of the silver and the dye from the image that was not processed by the color developer. A fixative is applied to the dye to help prevent it fading, etc. The process has been simplified over the years, the bleach and fixer are combined into a "blix", which does both. The color developer for Ektachrome has been changed to act on any undeveloped silver so the second exposure is no longer needed. The Kodachrome process is much more complex, there are more layers in the film and no dye. The dye must be added color by color. That's why Kodachrome is so sharp. Although there are more layers, since there is no dye in any of them, the film is much thinner and the grains of silver are smaller. On the other hand, the cost of making the film is higher. Ekatchrome is basicaly a color negative film with different dyes and no orange mask. Kodachrome is a very special film. Special these days is a problem. The more special a film is, the less likely a large company like Kodak can afford to make or process it. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ > > Yup that is my understanding. Silver is still the light sensitive > > component but gets washed away and dye is left. Or in the case of [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > Special these days is a problem. The more special a film is, the less > likely a large company like Kodak can afford to make or process it. I don't believe you said anything that contradicted what I said. Scott > I don't believe you said anything that contradicted what I said. You added some points to my posting, and I added some more to yours. Not every posting contradicts the others, I assumed that you felt there was something that you could add to what I had said to improve the discussion, and in the same spirit, I added to what you had said. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >> I don't believe you said anything that contradicted what I said. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Geoff. Additionally you can process C-41 film in E-6 chemistry to get some really weird transparencies (and vice versa). There's also a processing step you can use with B&W to give B&W transparencies. > Additionally you can process C-41 film in E-6 chemistry to get some > really weird transparencies (and vice versa). There's also a processing > step you can use with B&W to give B&W transparencies. That's part of the fun of film. You can play with the processing and get some interesting results. B&W transparencies have been around for a long time, in recent history there was/is a T-Max reversal processing kit, Agfa Scala (no longer made) and there was a lab in New York or London (I don't remember which) who would use the Scala process on Efke KB-25 which produced very good results, possibly better than Scala. I remember at one time there was a Kodak reversal kit for Tri-X, but I think it was replaced with the T-Max one. If memory serves, it was designed for the specified film, but would work with many others. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ [---] >I remember at one time there was a Kodak reversal kit for Tri-X, but I >think it was replaced with the T-Max one. If memory serves, it was >designed for the specified film, but would work with many others. That's the one being sold by Fotoimpex in Berlin. They also sell a considerably cheaper reversal kit by Foma. Fotoimpex have merged with http://www.retrophotographic.com/ and there are interesting things from www.silverprint.co.uk too. Duncan > [---] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's the one being sold by Fotoimpex in Berlin. They also sell a > considerably cheaper reversal kit by Foma. >Fotoimpex have merged with http://www.retrophotographic.com/ In the UK. But not in Germany. Thanks for that. The information I had seemed to imply that this was a complete merger. Unless it works both ways and that they are sharing the traffic? Duncan >>Fotoimpex have merged with http://www.retrophotographic.com/ > > In the UK. But not in Germany. > >> Additionally you can process C-41 film in E-6 chemistry to get some [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Geoff. From what I've read, I don't think you really need a special kit for Tri-X. According to Kodak's literature the T-Max kit is for T-max and TechPan films. >The film consists of three layers each sensative to a primary color >(red,green, blue) coupled with the appropriate dyes. Negative film >has magenta, cyan, and yellow dye, Ektachrome film has red, green, and >blue. Some Fuji slide film has a second (but different) red layer. I do hope Ektachrome has cyan, magenta, and yellow instead of red, green and blue otherwise it is not going to work. The difference between C-41 and E-6 is that in C-41 the silver that got exposed to lights gets replaced by dyes and in E-6 it is the unexposed silver. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency >> The film consists of three layers each sensative to a primary color >> (red,green, blue) coupled with the appropriate dyes. Negative film [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do hope Ektachrome has cyan, magenta, and yellow instead of red, green > and blue otherwise it is not going to work. I was reading this newsgroup and came upon this article which somehow just purely accidentally and so ever so coincidentally resembles my recent discussions with others and somehow ever so coincidentally my explanation > The difference between C-41 and E-6 is that in C-41 the silver that got > exposed to lights gets replaced by dyes and in E-6 it is the unexposed > silver. >>> The film consists of three layers each sensative to a primary color >>> (red,green, blue) coupled with the appropriate dyes. Negative film [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > resembles my recent discussions with others and somehow ever so > coincidentally my explanation Then maybe you can explain it to me. I stick with what I said. Ektachrome has the additive primary color dyes since it is viewed by transmission. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ >Then maybe you can explain it to me. I stick with what I said. Ektachrome >has the additive primary color dyes since it is viewed by transmission. The only way to do additive primary colors together with transmission is the way it is done in LCDs: a pixel element is either some amount of primary color or it is black. It is easy to see that slide have to be subtractive. In an additive transmission scheme you lose a large amount of light because each pixel element can be either red, green, or blue. In constrast, overexposed slides are almost transparent. Another problem is that you have to place primary rgb elements next to each other (they are not allowed to overlap) instead in layers as is done in color films. SignatureThat was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make. -- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency > Are there many current color films that use silver? > > Neil All. Signature"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron." - H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920. Reality-Is finding that perfect picture and never looking back. www.gregblankphoto.com >B&W chemicals are pretty benign. Most problematic is the fixer, because >it contains heavy metals (silver), which may in the long run cause >neurological problems. Commercial laboratories harvest and recycle it. Put a couple of metal scouring pads (Brillo, in the UK) in a plastic pot and pour your old fixer over them. Leave, stirring occasionally, then pour it off down the sink. Do this often enough and you may be able to sell the scouring pads - the silver will have plated out. The stuff you pour down the sink will be rich in iron, which is surely healthy? SignaturePaul Friday > My camera use about 4 cm^2 of silicon for the sensor, the total > chemicals to process this area is about 180 grams. and the rest of the electronic circuits in that camera are made of what? bubble gum? > You can find the break down here > <http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=author:"Williams"%20intitle:"The%201.7%20Kil ogram%20Microchip:%20Energy%20and%20Material%20Use%20in%20..."%20&hl=en&lr=&safe =off&oi=scholarr> yes, the semiconductor industry is sooo renowned for its "cleanliness", isn't it? Problem is: clean rooms != clean environment far from it. > Now it is clearly not as simple as a total amount of chemicals used for > processing the sensor chips vs. film but it at least does give a handle > of the magnitude that we are talking about. Exactly. There is a little bit more electronics in a digital camera than just the image sensor. And let's not forget the memory cards. > The really bad chemicals > used in the manufacture of the sensors is used in a extremely small [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be willing to bet that that roll of film pollutes a whole lot more then > the 1/3 grams it took to replace it. Nope, that isn't a comparison at all. first of all, film images are produced at a much lower rate than digital images. I'd say using number of images as a gauge of pollution is totally meaningless. second, digital cameras are being produced in incredible numbers. much, much larger numbers than film cameras ever were. I'm not talking about exotics like the 1ds or 5d. I'm talking everything else, including the el-cheapo crap you see on Tandy and such. Yes, those also use electronics, which ALL need the 1/3 grams of highly poisonous gases and such other lovely, harmless solvents, gases, masks, etcetc that are needed for the production of ICs. That all adds up. Like others have explained. Sensors are just a very small part of the equation. And even with sensors, it's not just one chemical. It's not just the etchants, it's also the solvents and a myriad other chemicals that are all needed in a long, complex process. It's no surprise that major electronics manufacturers have mostly "outsourced" their plants to third world countries: out of sight, out of worry. it's not just the cheap workforce, of that you can be assured. Toni Nikkanen wrote:- On the other hand, us younger people have no recollection of any pollution-related problems in photography...- That's because you don't visit the fabrication plants for digita cameras and media. If you are ever in Thailand or China, go visit on and see. Geoffrey S. Mendelson Wrote: > Disposal of the chemicals and wash water from black and white an > color [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Geoff. Where I live, home processors are exempt, but it's easy to precipitat these metals. Wear gloves, add a slight excess of caustic, leave i sit for a month, and pour off the supernatant. If you're reall diligent, you can pH adjust the supernatant to 7 and be left wit fairly inoccuous water which can go down a sewer to a city plant o leach field. Triple bag the sludge once a year and bring it to ha waste day (if you have them where you live). And great thread here Steve. It's good to hear from so many folk wrestling these same problems. -Mar -- MASL > Toni Nikkanen wrote:- > On the other hand, us younger people have no recollection of any [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > -Mark I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the entire world. I was stunned to see that. > "MASL" <MASL.2hfqc0@news.photobanter.com> wrote in message > I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the entire > world. I was stunned to see that. Got a cite for that? Just curious how you'd even measure that. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com >> "MASL" <MASL.2hfqc0@news.photobanter.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > rafe b > www.terrapinphoto.com No, I failed to bookmark the source page. I had never even considered that Kodak was a major polluter prior to reading that article. The article was discussing Kodak's transition from film to digital, and the pollution issue was mentioned as one reason why Kodak would be better off not having to deal with increasingly restrictive anti-pollution regulations around the world. > No, I failed to bookmark the source page. I had never even > considered that Kodak was a major polluter prior to reading that > article. Major polluter in the state of New York, perhaps, but not the world. > The article was discussing Kodak's transition from film to digital, Where Kodak just moves the pollution to someone elses back yard, probably overseas where they can get away with worse pollution. > I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the entire > world. I was stunned to see that. Do you have the citation, a source of authority for that? (Your last name isn't Rifkin, is it? :)) > > I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the entire > > world. I was stunned to see that. > > Do you have the citation, a source of authority for that? > > (Your last name isn't Rifkin, is it? :)) There are several companies I would suspect & pick before Kodak. Dupont & Union Carbide-Now Lindy. Exxon? being a few. SignatureWould thou choose to meet a rat eating dragon, or a dragon, eating rat? The answer of: I am somewhere in the middle. "Me who is part taoist and part Christian". >> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the entire >> world. I was stunned to see that. > > Do you have the citation, a source of authority for that? > > (Your last name isn't Rifkin, is it? :)) No, as I mentioned, I failed to bookmark the page and I do not recall where I read it. I do recall being stunned to learn that Kodak's chemicals were causing so much harm. My last name is not Rifkin. Who is that? >>> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the >>> entire world. I was stunned to see that. > No, as I mentioned, I failed to bookmark the page and I do not recall > where I read it. I do recall being stunned to learn that Kodak's > chemicals were causing so much harm. Kodak was at one time considered the greatest polluter in the state, not the country. > My last name is not Rifkin. Who is that? Jeremy Rifkin, the Complete Entropist. >>>> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the >>>> entire world. I was stunned to see that. > Kodak was at one time considered the greatest polluter in the state, not > the country. That's only because they are in New York. If they were in Texas, they would be the biggest in the world... -- Lassi >>>>> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the >>>>> entire world. I was stunned to see that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > would > be the biggest in the world... If they were in Texas, they wouldn't even make the top 10 polluters in the state. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan >>>>>> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the >>>>>> entire world. I was stunned to see that. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > David J. Littleboy > Tokyo, Japan It might have been the biggest water polluter, not necessarily the biggest polluter of any. I just don't remember, except to recall how stunned I was to hear that photo chemicals represented a significant pollution risk at all. > >>>>>> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the > >>>>>> entire world. I was stunned to see that. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > to hear that photo chemicals represented a significant pollution risk at > all. Our county just by itself puts out 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide gas each day. Given that our county has about 200,000 people in it that is about 20 Lbs of SO2 for each person living in our county. And I can tell you this, nobody is going to shut down our release of pollution. Scott > Our county just by itself puts out 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide gas each > day. > Given that our county has about 200,000 people in it that is about 20 > Lbs of SO2 for each person living in our county. You missed a few zeroes and a factor of 1.5, Scott. The US population is around 300 million right now. And yes, we do contribute (per capita) several times our share of pollution, compared to most other "developed" nations. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > Our county just by itself puts out 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide gas each > > day. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > You missed a few zeroes and a factor of 1.5, Scott. > The US population is around 300 million right now. County not country. Scott > County not country. My bad. rafe b www.terrapinphoto.com > > County not country. > > My bad. Our one county produces a LOT of pollution but as I said there is nothing to be done about it. There are some people who complain about iritated eye and asmia but hey if they don't like it here they can move to another county. There are some people who complain about irritated eye and asthma but hey if they don't like it here they can move to another county. BTW we also put out a LOT of CO2, but again nobody is going to lift a finger here to stop it since everyone knows it would be no use to even try to shut it down. Mostly we have learned to live with the pollution and try not to think about it. Scott > Our county just by itself puts out 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide gas > each day. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And I can tell you this, nobody is going to shut down our release of > pollution. :-) Any virgins thrown in as well? > > Our county just by itself puts out 2,000 tons of sulfur dioxide gas > > each day. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > :-) > Any virgins thrown in as well? We use to but it is getting hard to find the virgins any more. But clearly you see why we don't try and stop the pollution. Scott >>>>> I read, about a year ago, that Kodak was THE #1 polluter in the >>>>> entire world. I was stunned to see that. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > -- Lassi Hmmph! In Texas, they'd be also-rans. > Toni Nikkanen wrote:- > On the other hand, us younger people have no recollection of any > pollution-related problems in photography...- > That's because you don't visit the fabrication plants for digital > cameras and media. If you are ever in Thailand or China, go visit one > and see. That's right; we don't. However I was talking about the 70's or whenever when attention was suddenly focused on the environment problems of traditional film photography. I've heard about the changes that followed due to that from older photography hobbyists, but without them, I'd never know why we now have lower silver-content films and whatever. forget all asholes! today you can buy 620, 110, ortho 120/135 film, minox... from fotoimpex... how many years the last camera of 620 format are in shop windows ??? and with china searching things to produce... look at this wonderfull pano camera, the fotoman line... all these films "deads" are only decissions from bastars capitalism after sucking drugs by nose :-) >>Define "much longer" first? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Steve >> If I buy MF 120 film gear is there realistic expectation of having >> film available for that much longer? > > Define "much longer" first? sheesh I just thoought the same thing > A lot was said a while ago about Fuji giving up on velvia 50. > Well, it's back: fuji has decided to make it available for a while [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > I get some gear from a dealer depending on availability, > prices, etc. So far, it's working fine. Recently, Steve <steve@deletethissjwilliams.com> posted: > If I buy MF 120 film gear is there realistic expectation of having > film available for that much longer? Digital seems to be sweeping in > at a pace, yet I'd like to spend some more time with film and maybe > get few Cibachromes printed if that's going to be possible. I expect color film and digital to coexist for many years. Kodak and others are still coming up with new formulations, and the pro films are easily obtainable. Getting color film processed and printed by a lab is likely to become more difficult over time due to the decreasing volume of film users and the small number of digital shooters that print their images commercially. On the flip side, B&W photography and film is likely to be with us for the rest of our lives, regardless of how young one might be today. Neil >On the flip side, B&W photography and film is likely to be with us for the >rest of our lives, regardless of how young one might be today. That would be wonderful, what an irreplaceable loss real film and paper would be to the B+W world. Not done a lot myself, but it's nice to know I could if I wanted. Steve >That would be wonderful, what an irreplaceable loss real film and >paper would be to the B+W world. Not done a lot myself, but it's nice >to know I could if I wanted. For goodness sake - why not? Go grab yourself a handful of Tri-X or HP5 today. Shoot it. Get a tank, reels, and a changing bag, $20 worth of chemistry, and become self-sufficient. Nothing rocks quite as much as pulling your first film from the rinse water and seeing individual frames all in a row. SignatureCentral Maryland Photographer's Guild - http://www.cmpg.org Strange, Geometrical Hinges - http://sgh.rnovak.net >Nothing rocks quite as much as pulling your first film from the rinse >water and seeing individual frames all in a row. Ah, when I said I hadn't done a lot of mono I meant "as an adult". I had a mispent childhood developing mono film. Days when boys used to do things like that. I know the feeling you mean, it's really exciting seeing images come out of the water. I do still have two tanks, never quite threw them out ;-). First film I ever developled was a 126 cartridge, B+W of course. When I got that Coolscan I couldn't resist putting some mono through it, I have a few rolls I took on the F4. Looked OK, that thing does mono just *fine* :-). Revisit mono MF soon maybe. Steve > I've seen it discussed quite a bit, but I'd like a current view if > people don't mind making a brief comment. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > at a pace, yet I'd like to spend some more time with film and maybe > get few Cibachromes printed if that's going to be possible. Medium format film is "downsizing" like many other technologies that are no longer popular. What this means to you is that it will become a patient person's hobby. Unless you live in a city where there still are stores that cater to medium format users, you probably can't get a roll of film on Sunday anymore. You probably won't be able to find a camera or accessory in a store and look it over and "play" with it before you buy it. If your camera needs service, you won't be able to call around to the several repair shops in town and see who can fix it the fastest. Finding a lab that processes your film will be difficult. If the lack of those things frustrate you, don't get started. If you can live with a limited choice of locally available film, limited processing options and having to mail order film and equipment, you'll find that film, but not always the film you WANT, equipment and service will be readily available. It may take a few days to get it, but you will be able to get it. Film options are changing. 220 film will become rare. IMHO color film will "dry up" but it will never die of for a long time. Black and White film is a different issue. It has already become a specialty item. The big producers are either gone, or going out of the film business. Meanwhile, the specialty "boutique" producers of film are going strong and there seem to be more of them in the last few years. From an artistic point of view, this to me is a good thing. If you are patient and persistant, the choices in black and white films will be wider because each producer will be trying to produce an emulsion that is different than the others, and you won't end up with everyone selling films that vary more in the packaging than the results. Color negative films are really heading that way, look at what was available in the period from 1985 to 1995. I think that was the golden age of color films. At least for now, color slide film manufacturers are more intersted in a "look" than "good looking" (but all the same) pictures. Geoff. SignatureGeoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm@mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 Fax ONLY: 972-2-648-1443 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838 Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/ <snip> If I buy MF 120 film gear is there realistic expectation of having > film available for that much longer? Digital seems to be sweeping in > at a pace, yet I'd like to spend some more time with film and maybe > get few Cibachromes printed if that's going to be possible. <snip> I've had a Bronica ETRS for almost two years - I'm in the UK. I've only bought film from a shop twice in that time (and for some time before it) - one of those was the day on which I bought the camera. 120 film is easily obtained from a number of Web sources, for example: www.mx2.com www.photoglossy.com www.sevendayshop.com In the UK I find development (E6 and B&W) to be (almost) as cheap has it's ever been since I started photography in about 1973 (even in GBP, but definitely in real terms, accounting for inflation). I use www.transpacolor.com. They're certainly not the cheapest for prints, but for development I don't think I've seen cheaper. For (digital) prints I was using Jessops until recently, then they changed from Pixology to Snapfish - the user interface is useless, the prices are higher and the lead times longer... ...so I searched out an alternative and I've found amazing prices at http://www.keynshamphoto.co.uk/index.php (it's not worth buying paper and inkjet ink). They admit that their Web site isn't great, they don't do on-line ordering and in order to benefit from the "professional" prices on the Web site you have to prepare your images, but that's no big deal - it's probably best to ask them what they expect. The turn-round is then 2 days in the lab plus the postage time. You can even speed it up by paying 25% extra! I haven't used their postal service yet, but I have dropped some work into the shop and the results were at least as good as those I've had before. What I am in search of is somewhere to do Ilfachrome (previously Cibachrome). This is never cheap, so price isn't too much of an issue. If anyone knows of someone providing such a service I'd be interested to hear. I've found someone doing wet prints of transparencies via interneg, but if I'm paying for a premium service I want "the real thing". As someone else mentioned, Fuji released Velvia 100 earlier in the year and, in response to demand, have done some development work to enable them to offer Velvia 50 again from Spring 2007 - some of the original raw materials were no longer available, so they've actually had to do some R&D on this "retired" product, so they'll have some investment to make back on it; I doubt it's a flash in the pan. Film will be around for a while; if demand sinks further then we can expect increased prices, but with people like you and me returning to film I can't see that happening quickly. In the last seven years I have gone from 100% film to 80% digital and back to 90% film - though it will probably settle back to a more balanced split over time I will probably use film as long as it's available. Simon Recently, Simon Meeds <simonmeeds@yahoo.co.uk> posted: > [...] In the last seven years I > have gone from 100% film to 80% digital and back to 90% film - though > it will probably settle back to a more balanced split over time I > will probably use film as long as it's available. Perhaps a key to predicting the availability of film is in the answer to *why* you now shoot more film than digital. My own practices over the last decade is similar, though I always shot a higher percentage of film, with the "low" point still being above 50%. I do so because I prefer the look and the process as part of a creative expression. It wouldn't surprise me to see a significant number of MF shooters -- at least enough to keep film alive -- doing as we have. Neil >What I am in search of is somewhere to do Ilfachrome (previously >Cibachrome). This is never cheap, so price isn't too much of an issue. If >anyone knows of someone providing such a service I'd be interested to hear. >I've found someone doing wet prints of transparencies via interneg, but if >I'm paying for a premium service I want "the real thing". Thanks very much for that UK specific info. I can point you at a lab for Ilfachrome/Cibachrome, they were who I had in mind when I said here I intended getting some prints done again with this wonderful material. I have only used them for a roll of 35mm E6 so far, they did that fine, they seemed pleasant people when I spoke to them. http://www.bpdphotech.com/ Steve |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message