Search the web
Sign In
New User? Sign Up
konicaslr · Konica SLR Users
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Want to share photos of your group with the world? Add a group photo to Flickr.

Best of Y! Groups

   Check them out and nominate your group.
Having problems with message search? Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.

Messages

  Messages Help
Advanced
2 quick questions   Message List  
Reply | Forward Message #20474 of 20929 |
Re: [konicaslr] Re: 2 quick questions

A retired Kodak engineer told me that the Fuji 4 layer technology was developed
to solve a specific problem, that has since been solved another way, and Fuji
returned to using 3 layers on most films. While 4 layer had a lot of hoopla
around it's innovation, it's subsequent replacement had a lot less. Colour
films BTW can contain as many as 15 layers, on top of the base for various
reasons.

I've never seen curling problems with colour films from either Kodak or Fuji,
curl is caused by the fact that the gelatin in the emulsion, when it becomes wet
and then dries, shrinks slightly, where the base material does not. This can
be solved a few different ways, different manufacturers use different
techniques, in fact a single manufacturer can use different techniques on
different films, and the same film in different sizes.


Kodachrome, is the ultimate in colour reversal film technology, if your in the
year 1935, it compllicated and expensive to manufacture, it uses extremely thin
layers and a different base material from anything else. It's also complicated
and expensive to process, the chemistries are toxic and need constant monitoring
by a chemical engineer, which is why there is only one lab in the world still
processing it. E6 is a much newer process from the late 1970's, and has since
been chenged to remove a lot of the extremely toxic stuff, now it's almost as
benign as B&W processing, as is C41. Ektar 100 is proof that work is still
going on in research and development in film materials at Kodak Park. There
really isn't much more innovation to be done, they do tweak emulsions
occassionaly to improve the colour response, but there isn't a lot of massive
innovation to be done, with the fact that digital has stolen a lot of the
market, companies have had to cut
back, and R&D budgets have suffered. Outlier products like Kodachrome and Tech
Pan are casuallties, there may be a few more.

The Wogster
Blog: http://clickandspin.blogspot.com


>
>From: Kosma Moczek <kosma@...>
>To: konicaslr@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Friday, July 10, 2009 6:30:21 PM
>Subject: Re: [konicaslr] Re: 2 quick questions
>
>
>
>
>
>On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM,
>>frankgranovski<frankgranovski@ yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Okay, now that Kodachrome is gone, what sharp color film do you suggest?
>
>>A knowledgeable person (photography chemist/technician) told me to
>>avoid Kodak films in general and go for Fuji materials. The reasons
>>against Kodak were:
>>- Kodak's 3-color-layer design vs. Fuji's 4 color layers
>>- Lack of anti-curl layer
>>- Bias towards marketing instead of technological advantage
>>(especially with the recent release of Ektar 100*)
>>- General lack of technological progress
>
>>I'm slowly converting to B&W because of the ease of printing, but if I
>>were to shoot color, I'd go for Fuji Velvia (for slides) and high-end
>>Fuji films (Pro 160C, for example) for negatives. Fuji Reala 100 has
>>nice, neutral color rendition, but it seems Fuji is taking it out of
>>production.
>
>>Also, recently I've tried Kodak Portra 400VC (vivid color, there is
>>also NC for neutral color). Both of them have high saturation (despite
>>the name suffix). I've not ordered any prints yet (scans only), so I
>>can't give any real judgement right now. The medium format version of
>>this film has tendency to curl *badly*, though, because it doesn't
>>have the mentioned anti-curl layer.
>
>>You might also try Kodak Ektar 100 or Kodak 200UC, although I don't
>>like the way those two distort colors.
>
>>> I had no idea that these cameras were expensive when the came out. Where
they more expensive than Nikons/Nikkors?
>
>>Price history is available at JJ's website, unfortunately in French
>>only (albeit an English translation is in progress):
>
>http://konica. awardspace. com/page35/ page35.html
>
>>* Ektar 100 name bears resemblance to Ektachrome and "old" Ektar, but
>>they are totally unrelated. Ektar 100 is marketed as "great color,
>>world's finest grain" film, but the results are not as great as Kodak
>>claims.
>
>>--
>>Kosma Moczek
>http://www.kosma. pl/
>
> > >


__________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your
favourite sites. Download it now
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




Sat Jul 11, 2009 8:37 pm

wogster_ca
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email

Forward
Message #20474 of 20929 |
Expand Messages Author Sort by Date

1) I have a T3 and a NT3. The NT3 is touted as the better one. Why is that? (The feel the same to me.) 2) Which one's sharper, the 40/1.8 or the 50/1.7? (I...
Frank Granovski
frankgranovski
Offline Send Email
Jul 2, 2009
2:53 pm

Frank, The differences between the T3 and NT3 are minor and really only affect a couple of functions. The main one is the NT3 has a built-in hot shoe where the...
David Berrie
daveisoutfect
Offline Send Email
Jul 2, 2009
8:21 pm

Thanks for the info. I find the 40 and 50 equal with sharpness, but then I just went with my eyes could see. All my Konica gear is newish. The black T3 does...
Frank Granovski
frankgranovski
Offline Send Email
Jul 2, 2009
11:47 pm

On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Frank ... You would have to run tests using low-speed, fine-grained film and crazy (and costly) enlargement before you could...
Kosma Moczek
kosma133
Offline Send Email
Jul 8, 2009
1:28 pm

Thanks, Kosma. I was just curious. I've now used all my lenses all are super-sharp. (24, 29/1.8, 40, 50/1.7, 135/3.2.) The 135 is really amazing! It blows the...
frankgranovski
Offline Send Email
Jul 10, 2009
3:40 pm

... Actually, getting the 'greener grass' means you need to look for a proper film. Most cheap stuff (Kodak Gold, Fuji Superia, etc.) works well with cheap...
Kosma Moczek
kosma133
Offline Send Email
Jul 10, 2009
5:00 pm

Okay, now that Kodachrome is gone, what sharp color film do you suggest? I had no idea that these cameras were expensive when the came out. Where they more...
frankgranovski
Offline Send Email
Jul 10, 2009
9:40 pm

On Fri, Jul 10, 2009 at 11:03 PM, ... A knowledgeable person (photography chemist/technician) told me to avoid Kodak films in general and go for Fuji...
Kosma Moczek
kosma133
Offline Send Email
Jul 11, 2009
12:06 am

Thank you, Kosma....
frankgranovski
Offline Send Email
Jul 11, 2009
8:16 pm

A retired Kodak engineer told me that the Fuji 4 layer technology was developed to solve a specific problem, that has since been solved another way, and Fuji...
Paul Schmidt
wogster_ca
Offline Send Email
Jul 11, 2009
8:39 pm

Kosma, In 1970 I paid a little over 200 USD for a T2 with the f1.8 kit lens from either Cambridge Camera or 47th St Photo. A year later I bought a body only...
mmichaelski
Offline Send Email
Jul 11, 2009
12:59 am

... cpicalc says that 1970's $200 would be about $1100 now - which is about the price of EOS 500D with kit lens... -- Kosma Moczek http://www.kosma.pl/...
Kosma Moczek
kosma133
Offline Send Email
Jul 11, 2009
1:19 am
Advanced

Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines - Help