Regarding E100, Kodak has stated that it is prioritizing low granularity and good scanning results (with typical scanners) in its films developed in the last couple decades. This is also what we see out of Ektar, "finest grain color negative film", but it has lower resolution as the tradeoff.
Anyway, sorry for the off-topic digression, I'm off to shoot some Scala 50 and develop it in Rodinal.
I can't find them. Can you please suggest me where to look?
Regarding E100, Kodak has stated that it is prioritizing low granularity and good scanning results (with typical scanners) in its films developed in the last couple decades. This is also what we see out of Ektar, "finest grain color negative film", but it has lower resolution as the tradeoff.
Makes sense. Alas - no Kodak client in me as it's just nope in projection and projection is king.
Let's just hope that Fujichrome will survive whatever they have to survive right now and we will continue to have better slide films for the same or lower prices, compared to Kodak. And funny enough - I never had a grain problem with E-6 and Plustek. With Noritsu lab scans - yes, but no otherwise. It's a shame that they target scanning with an effing SLIDE film...
One can dream: Phoenix in E-6, Ilford entering the slide market (please?)
Wait a moment, this is interesting and not OT to me.
Are you stating that the finest grain a film has (or a developer imparts to a film - it comes to mind Perceptol for example) the less sharp a film is?
On the contrary, Rodinal and Ilfosol 3 are the most sharp developers around?
Please don't consider my question banal...
Thank you, Chris.
Well, ADOX SCALA in 120: Maybe in the future....would at least not be totally impossible.
But:
I like medium format quality, I am a medium format user as well. But there are several films on the market which offer such outstanding quality already in 35mm (especially in combination with excellent lenses), that I don't miss medium format at all when using them.
And SCALA 50 definitely belongs to that group. Especially if you go the "quality path" = viewing them under an excellent loupe on a light table, and of course especially when you are projecting them!!
Best regards,
Henning
I can confirm that both by the results of my scientific film resolution tests, and by the talks with Kodak at the introduction of Ektar at Photokina 2008.
Portra 400, Ektar 100 and Ektachrome 100 have all a measurable lower resolution at medium and higher object / detail contrast ratios in comparison to their forerunners. That is clearly visible when I evaluate the test results at medium to high magnification.
Kodak has put the priority on finer grain. The main reason for that is that today the huge majority of colour films is scanned. And most current scanners have two characteristics:
- they are sensible to grain, grain is most often visibly enhanced (exception: real drum scanners)
- they are not able to record the full resolution of film; the resolution capabilities are relatively weak: depending on the scanner type and film type you loose 20-80% of the original film resolution (I have tested that with many scanners up to the best drum scanners).
If you want to use the full resolution of film optical enlarging with excellent enlarging lenses and projection with excellent projection lenses are the way to go, by that you surpass even the best drum scanners significantly. And you can use almost the full resolution potential of film.
Therefore Kodak sees it this way: Finer grain is visible for the customer when the film is scanned. But high(er) resolution cannot be seen by the customer because the most popular scanners fail concerning resolution, they are often "resolution destroyers".
Just one example to make it more clear from my test series:
Sensia 100 III system resolution with my standard test lens at 1:4 object contrast: 120 lp/mm.
Same Sensia III test photo resolution scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 5000: 60 lp/mm.
At the Ektar 100 introduction at Photokina 2008 Kodak explained me their approach (see above) concerning that topic. It's a pragmatic approach, as simple as that.
Best regards,
Henning
Henning,
I'm sure viewing 35mm Scala slides on a light table with a loupe is wonderful, but now think of viewing B&W MF (5x5cm once mounted) transparencies that are stereo pairs in a good optical stereo viewer! I do stereo imaging using MF film, that why I'm looking for the best 120 film to use, preferably with the Adox Scala kit. When it comes to colour I use Provia 100f but still searching for the best B&W option.
Chris
Current Ektachrome is visibly less sharp with less resolution than Provia 100F even when scanned on my Nikon 5000, let alone a drum scan, so not sure why Kodak would follow this track. Or am I misunderstanding your point?
The bitter truth is that Kodak does not really care anymore for us film users who want the best quality in projection and optical enlarging.
I have interviews here from the late 90ies with the leading Kodak R&D staff at that time. Already at that time they made it absolutely clear that they at Kodak see the hybrid imaging chain with scanning and then digital post-processing as the future for film photography. At least in the mass market. And from that time on Kodak has really intensively promoted that way (and at that time they also still produced scanners).
I much prefer and love the outstanding results I get in projection and in optical enlarging in my darkroom. Therefore I am not a big fan of that development and way Kodak has chosen, and their marketing.
Best regards,
Henning
It must be said that the T-Max 100 and 400 and the iconic Tri-x 400 are still today unsurpassed for their look imho along with the de facto standard of d76 and the maybe last engineered developer: xtol.
I found a page online that tests different projection lenses and thought it would be useful to share here since this thread is also about slide projection: https://deltalenses.com/projector-lens-group-test-1-fast-90s/
I understand your approach, Chris. For 120 you can have a look at Aviphot Pan 200, which can be reversal processed with the ADOX SCALA kit. Or you try Ilford Delta 100. That worked very well with the Agfa SCALA process at Photo Studio 13. So chances are at least there that it can also work with the ADOX SCALA it (I haven't tried it yet, but I will hopefully in the future).
Best regards,
Henning
Maybe that's why I don't develop much more b&w slides nowadays?
You'll enjoy Delta 100 - it's wonderful. Especially with metal textures in my experience. And can be pushed 2 stops for solid contrast, keeping the grain well in check.
Kodak have priced themselves out of the European market. I'd use T-Max films if I could justify it, but I just can't. It's three times as expensive as Foma and almost twice as expensive as Delta. In large format, it's even more expensive than that.TMX and TMY-2 are indeed outstanding films, leading in technology and both offer excellent resolution (with both there is no sacrifice of sharpness and resolution in favour of fine grain).
But unfortunately Kodak Alaris is at least here in Europe demolishing their sales by too high prices. I know the sales numbers. TMX: It is shocking, they have become negligible, meanwhile even crappy fancy films from repacking firms have better sales.
Tri-X was in former times the best selling BW film in Europe. Meanwhile Fomapan 400, HP5+ and Kentmere 400 (including all its repackaged versions under different brand names) have much higher sales than Tri-X.
Sadly I can't - have reversed only in PQ Universal - Ilford Reversal. So no idea. But it's easy to approximate: shoot a roll, bracet 2 stops in each direction, develop for X time/temp. and see what you like. Go from there the next time around. To save film, cut it in 2-3 strips for more reversal testing. Agitation frequency plays a rather significant role in contrast and highlight clarity/density - as you agitate more frequently, you replenish the exhausted chems, increasing activity. For pushing it's beneficial to agitate less frequently and compensate with increased dev time - helps to open shadows and to maintain highlight detail. Trial and errorIvo, Any suggestion for the first development time/temperature for Delta 100 in the Adox Scala kit?
Kodak have priced themselves out of the European market. I'd use T-Max films if I could justify it, but I just can't. It's three times as expensive as Foma and almost twice as expensive as Delta. In large format, it's even more expensive than that.
Of course, please have a look here:
For 35mm film:
- https://kaiser-fototechnik.de/de/produkte/artikel.php?nr=2156
- https://reflecta.de/de/98-cs2
- https://www.fotoimpex.de/shop/filme...VG*MTcyNjkzMzc2MC4xLjAuMTcyNjkzMzc2MC4wLjAuMA..
- https://www.nordfoto.de/Analoge-Fot...iarahmen-1-8mm-24x36-mm-200-Stueck::9864.html
For medium format (4.5x6, 6x6, 6x7):
- https://dia-archive.de/Pages/Produkte/diawechselrahmen.html
- https://www.fotobrenner.de/search?p=1&q=Diarahmen&o=7&n=48&s=522
6x9cm:
- www.jensen-diaprojektoren.de
Best regards,
Henning
I can confirm that both by the results of my scientific film resolution tests, and by the talks with Kodak at the introduction of Ektar at Photokina 2008.
Portra 400, Ektar 100 and Ektachrome 100 have all a measurable lower resolution at medium and higher object / detail contrast ratios in comparison to their forerunners. That is clearly visible when I evaluate the test results at medium to high magnification.
Kodak has put the priority on finer grain. The main reason for that is that today the huge majority of colour films is scanned. And most current scanners have two characteristics:
- they are sensible to grain, grain is most often visibly enhanced (exception: real drum scanners)
- they are not able to record the full resolution of film; the resolution capabilities are relatively weak: depending on the scanner type and film type you loose 20-80% of the original film resolution (I have tested that with many scanners up to the best drum scanners).
If you want to use the full resolution of film optical enlarging with excellent enlarging lenses and projection with excellent projection lenses are the way to go, by that you surpass even the best drum scanners significantly. And you can use almost the full resolution potential of film.
And I then started the tests together with the SCALA expert at Photostudio 13. And the result was quite astonishing and very positive, with very nice results. The only significant restriction was the minimum development time of the FD in the special Refrema dip-and-dunk processing machine for the SCALA process (3:15 min.). Therefore a pull-development was not possible for this film. But that was a limitation by the machine, and not the film.
In other words: I wound't waste my precious eFKe films (or any other not-produced-anymore films) to try to reverse them, although I know they will reverse very well...
Are you stating that the finest grain a film has (or a developer imparts to a film - it comes to mind Perceptol for example) the less sharp a film is?
I always thought that sharpness could be related to how much the gelatine swells.
I do stereo imaging using MF film, that why I'm looking for the best 120 film to use, preferably with the Adox Scala kit. When it comes to colour I use Provia 100f but still searching for the best B&W option.
Heh, I had a suspicion that it's the thinness of Aviphot that could contribute some projection sharpness - Astrum Foto 400 is stupid thin and therefore harder to handle, but it looks extra great when projected. No info about emulsion thickness that I can find though.Emulsion thickness is a big part of it - and how much 'stuff' has to be packed in
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?