Where would film technology be now?

[MattKing]

My understanding is that the recommendation is for all processing ways, there is a period before the recommendation.

At the risk of falling back on my law school, statutory interpretation lessons, that sort of construction results in the subsequent sentence modifying only the previous sentence in the paragraph, not all the previous sentences.
And in the datasheets for the developers. the recommendation is found only in the section on rotary development - there is no reference to pre-rinse in the sections on other types of development.
And of course from back in the mists of time (2015), from Ilford's then representative on this board (and one of the owners and Directors of Harman) Simon R Galley, this post:
[URL="https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/fp4-and-delta.127258/page-2#post-1681180"]FP4 and Delta[/URL]
Which reads:
"I have already stated : We do not recommend pre-soaking our films, we do not believe it is necessary. BUT nor, done correctly, should it harm them, the risk is uneven development, but if you use a JOBO fine, if pre-soaking is part of workflow and you prefer it...fine.

I will always take the advice of our technical service staff in relation to our products, they are deeply knowledgeable with decades of service and very hands on.

From a personal perspective I have never pre-soaked.... ever, and never had a problem.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :"

That post was consistent with other posts made by Simon.

 

[138S]

Simon R Galley, this post:
FP4 and Delta
Which reads:
"I have already stated : We do not recommend pre-soaking our films, we do not believe it is necessary. BUT nor, done correctly, should it harm them, the risk is uneven development, but if you use a JOBO fine, if pre-soaking is part of workflow and you prefer it...fine.

I will always take the advice of our technical service staff in relation to our products, they are deeply knowledgeable with decades of service and very hands on.

From a personal perspective I have never pre-soaked.... ever, and never had a problem.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :"

That post was consistent with other posts made by Simon.

IMHO what film datasheets says may be subject to interpretation, it is not in the "rotary section", but in the "development times" section. As pre soak is religion matter perhaps they preferred allowing different interpretations

Anyway the text you posted and other sources around makes clear what ilford says.

My guess is that as PE pointed a long enough pre soak can only be benefical as emulsion is uniformly swelled, another thing is if quality modern films require it or not, probably it was very recommendable for the films made in the 1960s.

 

[MattKing]

IMHO what film datasheets says may be subject to interpretation, it is not in the "rotary section", but in the "development times" section.

And in the developer datasheets, it is not in the "development times" section, nor in the small tank inversion agitation section (or deep tank and other options sections), but rather just in the "rotary development" section.
If you want more of the religious discussions , this 2015 thread will give you lots more: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pre-rinse-or-no-pre-rinse.125702/

 

[138S]

And in the developer datasheets .... but rather just in the "rotary development" section.

Yes, but in the case you point in the "rotary section" they say:

"However, generally we
do not recommend using a pre-rinse as it can lead
to uneven development."

And generally is also for tanks and etc.

I agree, this is religion

 

[Minolta93]

I wonder if we'd see electronically controlled shutters that use an electric current to polarize or de-polarize a filter to let light through. In addition maybe you could have a liquid crystal pane that could reduce the dynamic range of a scene. The camera could detect areas of varying brightness and darken the filter only at those locations during the exposure.

 

[gone]

This is a very interesting to speculate on. I feel that film had/has pretty much been developed and exploited to it's limit, and probably has been for decades. Photography has been around for a long, long time now. I doubt anyone can do anything w/ it that Edward Weston and the other masters didn't try. Nor do I think there's really anything new to add to it. The process is what it is, there's only so much that can be done w/ it and still call it analog photography.

If one looks at the posts made here and elsewhere over the years, it's clear that photographers are going back to the older forms of film photography because that gives a look that cannot be made or equaled w/ new equipment. Often in art, the old ways were the best ways. If I want the best results for my photography I have to go back in time, not forward. Old lenses, old type film emulsions, stuff like that. As for photography for consumers, that's a different story. That's more about convenience, price, ease of use, etc.

 

[Cholentpot]

This is a very interesting to speculate on. I feel that film had/has pretty much been developed and exploited to it's limit, and probably has been for decades. Photography has been around for a long, long time now. I doubt anyone can do anything w/ it that Edward Weston and the other masters didn't try. Nor do I think there's really anything new to add to it. The process is what it is, there's only so much that can be done w/ it and still call it analog photography.

If one looks at the posts made here and elsewhere over the years, it's clear that photographers are going back to the older forms of film photography because that gives a look that cannot be made or equaled w/ new equipment. Often in art, the old ways were the best ways. If I want the best results for my photography I have to go back in time, not forward. Old lenses, old type film emulsions, stuff like that. As for photography for consumers, that's a different story. That's more about convenience, price, ease of use, etc.

I think the base would have been improved on. I also think that there would have been an APS like format for medium format which honestly would have caught on much better than APS.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I worked on electro-optical subsystems for spacecraft since the early 1970's and I think that the need for digital photography would have driven the industry would have inevidently driven its invention. Without digital photography, better color and black & white films of finer grain would have been developed.

 

[jnamia]

I'm curious to hear the opinions of some of the experts here...

Where might film technology be now if digital had not come along. Film was a big business, with big money to invest in R&D. Digital has come pretty far in resolution and high ISO performance. How far might film have come along? What other innovations might have been possible for film?

HI Ariston

I never saw this thread when you posted it originally but I don't think it would have made much of a difference. Higher ASA films, that looked more "grain free" have been the holy grain ( I guess? ) of film photography for years. I mean even on this website people are yearning for film that looks digital and kodak was working on it for eons. I read the posts about heat developed film? sounds like a nightmare to me. I have thermal cash register receipts that have turned into a white blank sheet of paper in my desk drawer, I don't think that would be a good thing for negatives, but mini lab? who knows I mean people send their film to mini labs now and they don't return the negatives so I don't think the general public really cares, they couldn't care less about negatives, not for me though. IDK I think the R+D of film and papers have kind of ruined them. papers aren't nearly as "good" as they used to be (nothing I can get now compares to blue box seagull grade 3) and film, I mean TRI-X looks like TMAX, I mean it's not really tri x anymore. I don't really care to be honest it is what it is and I'm not complaining. But what to answer your question. maybe exactly like it is today.

 

[SomewhereLost]

They built the entire history of film on the back of constant change and evolution. I'd have to assume, if it wasn't digital, something else was going to come along and radically disrupt what was.

 

[Helge]

As per PEs answer, the main culprit standing in the way of faster film was always transport and the shelf at the store and the consumer.

If we could have a more direct path from coating to shooting, OR more plausibly a way to hyper the film hours before or ideally when shooting, then we could have faster film.

Alternative ways of development is also a quite unexplored road.
The reversal development casually mentioned in the Kodak paper, is the merest hint of what is possible.

Try making a long exposure, even a few hours, with a digital camera with the body cap on.
Welcome to Noise City.

What film does is amazing.
Reciprocity error and electron hysteresis is, as is now, basically features and not errors.

 

[Helge]

You essentially have to do the equivalent of dodge and burn in camera.
The much maligned Cokin filters and holder is a good cheap entry to do that.

I once had the idea if it would be possible to make a transparent LCD screen filter, that with the image from a simple digital camera could create a mask over the film plane, that would allow slide to capture more detail in contrasty environments.

I wonder if we'd see electronically controlled shutters that use an electric current to polarize or de-polarize a filter to let light through. In addition maybe you could have a liquid crystal pane that could reduce the dynamic range of a scene. The camera could detect areas of varying brightness and darken the filter only at those locations during the exposure.

Copycat. ;-)

Problem is you’d loose at least one stop of light, if not more through the polarizers.
That would be unacceptable with the already slow medium of film.
So you’d need a way to remove the filter seamlessly, like a dark slide or an even more convenient way. At the same time as making the dynamic display filter sit flush to the film plane.
Somewhat like a stiff shutter curtain to be slid back and fort, or up and down.

 

[cmacd123]

Without digital photography, better color and black & white films of finer grain would have been developed.

My benchmark is the decade when Both Fuji and Eastman were competing in Motion Picture film, when Digital projection was the exception and so their were opportunities to sell 6000 or more feet of print stock for every theatre that opened every production. that might be 50 to a couple of hundred prints. Often a big selling point to get that order was due to the film stock that had been used in Camera.

both Kodak and Fuji wanted that business, and so they both went all out in improving their Movie Capture stocks. Kodak went from EXR to Vision, then Vison 2 and Vison 3. Fuji kept leapfrogging all the way with a new line of camera stocks in between each wave from Kodak. Once the theatres were forced to switch to digital projection, the game became less interesting and Fuji discontinued their entire line of Movie film. ecept for a B&W digital separation - and archivial stock. this included things like Fuji VIVID 160, and their 500D stock.

the last several years we have only seen the Vision 3 line - although the technology is metioned as being included (in c-41 still form) in some of the Porta stocks. without competition, there is little incetive for Eastman to work on Vision 4.

 

[Minolta93]

Copycat. ;-)

Problem is you’d loose at least one stop of light, if not more through the polarizers.
That would be unacceptable with the already slow medium of film.
So you’d need a way to remove the filter seamlessly, like a dark slide or an even more convenient way. At the same time as making the dynamic display filter sit flush to the film plane.
Somewhat like a stiff shutter curtain to be slid back and fort, or up and down.

Now I have no idea if my idea was original or if I'd somehow remembered your post when I read this thread a while ago. Maybe something like that could be a feature to be turned on or off. If you don't need the dynamic range your camera works as usual, but if you want dynamic range extension, you just press a button to go into that mode. And maybe we'd have had 3200 speed slide film or something like that, anyway.

 

[Helge]

Now I have no idea if my idea was original or if I'd somehow remembered your post when I read this thread a while ago. Maybe something like that could be a feature to be turned on or off. If you don't need the dynamic range your camera works as usual, but if you want dynamic range extension, you just press a button to go into that mode. And maybe we'd have had 3200 speed slide film or something like that, anyway.

No worries, it’s quite an obvious idea, that has probably been thought of 1 million times.
@laser talked about a similar thing, he actually made a prototype of for enlarging.

It’s only quite recently though, that it has become economically feasible to implement it in an actual consumer camera.

That, and the build in capacity for flashing and lantensification would be killer for a new camera.
You’d still need a real shutter, but it could be simpler and perhaps be combined with the aperture.

You could probably also do selective polarization with somewhat the same technology.

 

[Mr Bill]

@laser talked about a similar thing, he actually made a prototype of for enlarging

Hi, I recall, perhaps back in the 1990s, being at an IS&T conference where someone from Agfa presented a paper on the the use of an LCD screen in a minilab printer to self-mask the individual images. They showed actual print samples with a marked improvement in the high-contrast situations that amateurs would often shoot - harsh sunlight across people's faces, etc.

At the time I expected this to become one of the next "big things" in one-hour labs, but it never seemed to come to fruition. There was only a brief period of time when this would have been feasible - after the first use of scanners in mini-labs (this was in the family of MSC mini-labs by Agfa) and prior to the use of digital exposures in same.

These first mini-lab scanners had the primary purpose of improving the automatic color correction of printers, etc., with a main goal of eliminating the need for a skilled operator on the printer. Up until then the standard method was an integrated 3-color measurement after the negative using what they called an "integrate to gray" principle. An operator would override the auto-system, as needed, by observing each negative then pressing an appropriate button.. By using even a low-res scanner it was possible to greatly improve the "interpretation" of what the negative was showing. These scanners were also able find the edges of the individual frames. So combined with an auto-advance mechanism for the film it was no longer necessary to have an operator sitting at the printer.

A second benefit of the low-res scanner, along with a digital exposing mechanism, was to make "index prints" with a crude representation of all frames on a roll. So the customer can see what they have on their roll in a brief glance. Fwiw these index prints were initially a specification of APS, the "Advanced Photo System," which had a number of user-friendly features. Many of these never came through due to the explosive growth of digital camera use. It just didn't make financial sense for a business to sink a lot of money into APS equipment.

Back to the use of LCD screens for masking - I don't believe they were optically good enough for use in an image-forming optical path (meaning in-camera). But in the case of an optical printer the LCD screen could be used in the light - path prior to the negative. So it could modulate the non-image-forming light as an unsharp mask. Also, in this case, the loss of half the light (due to polarizing filter) is not a big deal - just increase the printing exposure.

 

[koraks]

Mr Bill, a very similar concept at least at a theoretical level is today used in semiconductor lithography.

 

[Minolta93]

Wouldn't it be possible to have the film transport separate from the camera body, and mounted in a multi-axis stabilization device?

 

[Helge]

Wouldn't it be possible to have the film transport separate from the camera body, and mounted in a multi-axis stabilization device?

Take it one step further and use the flex of film to its advantage.
Not only could you tilt and slightly shift film with no Ill effects in a sandwich between a flat glass (a la Rolleiflex) and a pressure plate.

You could also press the film into a very slight curve for better and simpler wide angle lenses.

Preflashing/latencefication LEDs build into the projection box before film gate is a no brainer.

And of course a retro reflecting/projecting backing plate for film with no or removed anti halation backing for a roughly doubling of film speed.

 

[jtk]

Nobody bothered to pursue any of that because they knew what was coming.

 

[ic-racer]

I'm curious to hear the opinions of some of the experts here...

Where might film technology be now if digital had not come along. Film was a big business, with big money to invest in R&D. Digital has come pretty far in resolution and high ISO performance. How far might film have come along? What other innovations might have been possible for film?

Color has always been a poor second cousin to B&W, heck they gave up on silver (the cornerstone of film photography) for dyes decades ago. So, digital is just the natural progression that continues to evolve. For example pigments on paper are almost totally replaced by colored lights. What was a 'picture' or 'frame' is now a 'screen' or 'tablet.'

 

[Helge]

Nobody bothered to pursue any of that because they knew what was coming.

We have absolutely no idea if that is true. Technically all of the above has been possible since at least the seventies.

Color has always been a poor second cousin to B&W, heck they gave up on silver (the cornerstone of film photography) for dyes decades ago. So, digital is just the natural progression that continues to evolve. For example pigments on paper are almost totally replaced by colored lights. What was a 'picture' or 'frame' is now a 'screen' or 'tablet.'

Not true. Quality print has always held a special place. It’s not the only way (apart for projection). to get a viewable result anymore.
But print for the wall and quality books is as important and popular as ever.
In fact people hunger for the solidness, implicit demand, insistence and permanence of print in a world where everything is just “view for five seconds and next”.

Wouldn't this ruin the image or blur it significantly

Not if the image is projected accurately back with a variable focal length mirror.
Would require a rather complex and deep back but there is a patent for it IIRC from the sixties for this, that made it seem workable.
So not my idea.
It’s worth noting that both of the extant instant film systems benefit from back reflection for upping the speed. Instax would be sub 400 speed film if it was translucent and made use of antihalation.
Print paper benefits from substrate reflection for again roughly doubling the speed.

 

[Minolta93]

We have absolutely no idea if that is true. Technically all of the above has been possible since at least the seventies.



Not true. Quality print has always held a special place. It’s not the only way (apart for projection). to get a viewable result anymore.
But print for the wall and quality books is as important and popular as ever.
In fact people hunger for the solidness, implicit demand, insistence and permanence of print in a world where everything is just “view for five seconds and next”.



Not if the image is projected accurately back with a variable focal length mirror.
Would require a rather complex and deep back but there is a patent for it IIRC from the sixties for this, that made it seem workable.
So not my idea.
It’s worth noting that both of the extant instant film systems benefit from back reflection for upping the speed. Instax would be sub 400 speed film if it was translucent and made use of antihalation.
Print paper benefits from substrate reflection for again roughly doubling the speed.

I wonder if this could be done by an amateur for use in a medium format camera or something easy to modify the back. They could use IMAX sized Vision3 slit down for 120 (or, I suppose, 220) with the remjet removed.

 

[AnselMortensen]

Nobody bothered to pursue any of that because they knew what was coming.

Yeah...they were working on the 'latest & greatest' idea...

APS.

 

[ic-racer]

We have absolutely no idea if that is true. Technically all of the above has been possible since at least the seventies.



Not true. Quality print has always held a special place. It’s not the only way (apart for projection). to get a viewable result anymore.
But print for the wall and quality books is as important and popular as ever.
In fact people hunger for the solidness, implicit demand, insistence and permanence of print in a world where everything is just “view for five seconds and next”.



Not if the image is projected accurately back with a variable focal length mirror.
Would require a rather complex and deep back but there is a patent for it IIRC from the sixties for this, that made it seem workable.
So not my idea.
It’s worth noting that both of the extant instant film systems benefit from back reflection for upping the speed. Instax would be sub 400 speed film if it was translucent and made use of antihalation.
Print paper benefits from substrate reflection for again roughly doubling the speed.

You know I'm just joking but seriously it was estimated in 2017 1.4 Trillion digital pictues were taken and only 80 million printed.
Or about 0.00005714285% printed, vs the rest seen with colored lights only or stillborn in the world of numerical abstraction.