richard_eaton1

<p>Ektachrome and C-41 are quite similar in basic design, as you can, of course, cross-process E6 films in C-41 and get quite usable (if querky!) results. My Father's early C-22 and C-41 negs were processed by the Kodak manufacturer service which was then available (also E4 slides by Kodak) are still fine).<br>

As with poor processing of Ektachrome, I'm sure there was, and still is, good and bad C-41 processing. Maybe more so than Ektachrome, as there are alternative independent versions of C-41 which use shortcuts like combined bleach-fix baths and variations of stablizer, which some people argue are not as good as the full Kodak (or Fuji) versions.<br>

I'm comfortable that the latest Kodak (and Fuji) color films <em>with proper processing </em>are as-good-as-it-gets for longevity. If you really need an absolute guarantee that you negs will be "as new" in 100 years, however, you will need to investigate archival properties and special storage recommendations.</p>

<p>In common with all UK companies, Harman Technology Ltd's full annual accounts and other company returns are public information available on the UK Government site <a href="http://www.companieshouse.gov.uk">www.companieshouse.gov.uk</a> and downloadable for a norminal charge.<br>

<br />Other than considering these, which you seem not to want to discuss, why do you query if it is "Reliable"? I'm sure that they will be around as long as any business, and longer than many, in these recessionary times. I think that, if you need more re-assurance that what had already been said, you will need to find someone with an accurate and reliable crystal ball. :-)</p>

<p>I think that good wet darkroom prints still have an fine edge of quality over digital. My father did some color printing about 30 years ago, and. IMHO, you really need a dedicated darkroom and facilities, and, above all, the time to spend in making it a serious hobby. <br />I agree with everything P Baines says above, but two of his comments, "With a few weeks of practice, you'll soon get the hang of colour balancing", and "A decent halfway house, if you can't find a roller transport machine, is a heated nova slot processor", confirm that it isn't something to undertake lightly. Particularly in a domestic situation if space is limited.<br />OTOH, I can have my Epson photo-quality printer sitting with my scanner in my study, and, even if I have only a half-hour spare, I can usefully work on scan, photo-shop, or printing something, while clearing-up is just the saving of files and a click of the off-switch. Not better than a darkroom, but far more practical where time and space are limited. And there are some great photo-quality inkjet papes available from Harman, etc., even baryta base.</p>

<p>That would be May 24th 1962, assuming the "american" convention of month-date-year. Were the negs, etc., from the US or by a US photographer?</p>

<p>I'd concur that this is a lab or scanning issue, rather than camera problems....too many "scratches", and, in any event, the back of the film is protected by the backing paper.<br>

Delta 3200 is a great film, but needs sympathetic processing....I'd try another roll and send it to Ilford's service. They are top quality (I've seen their lab on a factory visit) and give individual attention to different types of film (not just their own products).....and will give an honest answer if there's a problem. (No connection....just a satisfied customer!)</p>

<p>I've come across this technique years ago in connection with astro-photography, where it can assist in improving the recording of very faint stars and objects. And also in reducing contrast in slide copying/duplicating.<br />In both cases, it took a lot of experimenting and the pre-flashing needed was of a <em>very </em>short duration, certainly much less than you could give by manually switching a light.<br />What's your purpose with Provia?</p>

<p>Chris - the last thing I want to do is to discourage anyone, and I'm fully aware than most specialist hobbies rely on mail order. Even film and supplies for still photography are getting that way very quickly.<br>

My concern was that abi cole <em>seems</em> to have limited knowledge of analog photo generally, and, if they embark on 8mm photography without realising what is involved and the likely costs, they <em>will, </em>most certainly, be discouraged! How is a site like Spectra Film of help to a beginner? <br>

In the past, I've shot thousands of feet of both 16mm, (negative, reversal, scope and sound), and 8mm, so I do know where to still get stock and the mechanics and costs of dealing with pro labs for processing and all the stages through to release prints. And that was why I'm interested in replying to Abi in a helpful way. I was merely pointing out that someone who doesn't yet understand that film has to be processed before it can be viewed (sorry, Abi, :-) ) needs a <em>lot</em> of guidance before embarking on movie photography, and, unless they have some special enthusiasm for film, they may, in 2012, be better advised to go down the video route, at least initially.</p>

<p>All photographic film has to be processed ("developed") after removal from the camera (just like your old Brownie or Instamatic camera). This produces the finished image and removes any further sensitivity to light. If you take the film from the camera and expose it to light in any way, it will be ruined.<br>

I think that you may be getting confused between this old camera and modern video cameras....it's <em>totally</em> different, just as your digital camera or smartphone is a totally different system of making pictures to your old Kodak Instamatic . :-)<br>

I suggest that you really need to do quite a bit more research for yourself on the internet...if your general knowledge of photography is basic (I'm not been rude, we all started somewhere!) and you're just wanting to make some movies/videos, there are much simpler ways than trying to use 8mm film. The availability of film and processing is now <em>very</em> limited and relatively expensive...I guess it's really only kept alive by a few dedicated enthusiasts.</p>

<p>8mm movie film, while not totally obsolete, is now quite difficult to obtain....you are probably looking at mail order from one of the small specialist dealers via the internet.<br />For this camera you will need "standard-8", (sometimes called "double-8"), which is supplied on small spools. (<em>not</em> the later Super-8 or Single-8, which have different perforations and come in plastic cartridges). Standard-8 reels hold 16mm wide film, which is run through the camera twice, then slit by the processing lab to give a 50 ft. lenght on little 8mm spool for viewing.<br />Films are best viewed by projection...make sure that any projector you buy takes <em>standard-8 </em>film<em>. </em>At one time there were various small hand viewers, but, so far as I know, most were rather plasticky things which tended to scratch the film.<br>

There is a huge amount of information on the internet, and an hour or two with Google should give you lots of leads,</p>

<p>After the demise of Kodachrome, I've less interest in slides, and have moved back to B&W and some color negative.<br>

I always keep a fairly good stock of film in the freezer, so, other than recently buying a few Plus-X films "for-old-tymes-sake", I'm not stocking up specially in anticipation of Kodak's possible demise. Kodak films <em>aren't</em> dead yet, and I'm confident that Ilford and the smaller players will still be around for as long as I'm likely to need film.</p>

<p>Lausanne ceased actually processing the film in 2006, but remained the European mailing address right up until the end in Dec 2010. The films were couriered to-and-from Dwaynes in Kansas, then the slides mailed back to users from Switzerland. ( The Swiss staff were always very efficient and helpful right up to the closure of the service).</p>

<p>I've noticed that all the consumer Kodak 100 and 200 ASA film which I've bought in the last couple-of-years-or-so in UK, Spain and Austria, seems to be in generic "Kodak Colour Negative Film" cassettes, whatever the outside packing, Colorplus, Gold or the German "Farbwelt 100" version.<br>

My guess (FWIW) is that they are producing just one emulsion, with different packaging for the various markets.</p>

 

<p>Of course...the "Agfaphoto" brand name has been owned by Lupus for several years (it says on the cartons that it is independent of Agfa-Gevaert). As frank menesdorfer says, what <em>is</em> interesting is that fresh film is being manufactured, rather then using the remains of the 2005 final master rolls. If this is up to the Agfa quality (and it seems to be), it represents another choice and source of film.</p>

<p>FWIW, I tried to track down the Valca company in Spain a while ago (to try to date some old family "Valcolor" negatives). The business closed many years ago (20-ish) and even then it seemed that their C-41 film (if not all, and certainly in later years) was rebadged.</p>

<p>Fresh Agfa 35mm film in color neg and reversal is definitely currently available in the UK and Europe, by mail order and seen in a (very) few shops. Not seen any B&W so far.<br />The Precisa reversal is "Made in Japan" and at least some of the neg is "Made in China", so subcontracted manufacture rather than made by Agfa. (Both versions seem good quality from the one or two which I've used so far.)</p>

<p>Depends entirely on the lab...I've had hopeless results and lost and damaged films over the years from one-or-two so-called "professional labs". I now use a postal service from a small retail shop, who produce immaculate clean negs and prints, invariably by return mail...even on Saturdays. My only criticism is that, as they use a minilab machine, the service is only 35mm (and APS, if anyone still has any films of that size...).</p>

<p>Not really surprising, I'm sure that they will have "enough on" with the technical and financial commitment of the present project.<br>

They could also consider argue that there are still some fine color reversal films available...but that even this seem to be a declining market.</p>

 

<p>Is it just an updated version of this:-<br /><a href="http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Production/Color_Negative_Films/5201.htm">http://motion.kodak.com/motion/Products/Production/Color_Negative_Films/5201.htm</a><br />The other speeds of their color negative movie film seem to have all already been updated to "Vision3" versions.</p>

<p>Colour neg and B&W. (After the last year shooting loads of Kodachrome, I've rather lost heart in transparencies. But I shall have to try to work up some enthusiasm again, to use up the pile of E6 films in my freezer, while processing is still available!),</p>

<p>I'm in the UK and, like Ian, have noticed that APS films seem to have gradually disappeared from the shops. A pity, as I know a few users, including my wife who likes to carry a small easy-to-use film camera....as she says, she gets real prints, rather than waiting weeks for me to print out anything from her digital camera!<br>

The Kodak UK site also confirms that Kodak are no longer supplying the film here: <a href="http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=164/7010/6994&pq-locale=en_GB">http://www.kodak.com/eknec/PageQuerier.jhtml?pq-path=164/7010/6994&pq-locale=en_GB</a><br>

There is no mention of the film on the Fujifilm UK site, while the situation with the Agfa version seems unclear (and some recent Agfa 35mm colour films are OEM products from either Japan or China). Bearing in mind that both the film base itself and the cassettes are quite different from 35mm, it doesn't look promising that anyone else is likely to take up production.<br>

Some film is still available on Ebay, but there is also the question of how long labs will maintain the specialist APS equipment. It's almost impossible to get 126 film processed now, even though it is 35mm width.</p>

<p>The "feel" of a manual wind-on lever can also sometimes indicate when a film is not winding correctly.<br>

I imagine that a blank film from a manufacturing defect would be almost impossible with modern films and QC, while the correct appearance of the edge markings would exclude a processing issue.</p>

<p>Whichever type of processor is used, I presume that there is some stage at which the film has to be handled manually, e.g. removal from the cassette, or removing from the machine for cutting/filing in the film sleeve? Could there be a problem with this at the first lab?</p>

<p>I'm a great user of Scotch Magic tape for a lot of darkroom uses, including attaching bulk film to the spool.<br>

It's quite strong enough (though you shouldn't wind on too vigorously after the 36th exposure...but that's not a good practice anyway for either film or camera), it's usually peelable and, above all, the adhesive doesn't ooze. I have some photos and cuttings which my late father protected with non-adhesive film over 35 years ago...this was held with Magic tape, and, even after all this time, the tape has left no mark on the adjacent photo or paper surface. </p>

<p>I've always put my films in my carry-on baggage and never had an issue with X-rays, in various parts of Europe (including Eastern Europe in pre-1990 times), far-East and Oz.<br>

The only time I had a problem was a 35mm reversal film posted to the old Orwo processing works in Germany (from the UK, after re-unification and before Orwo closed), which was heavily (and characteristically) fogged by X-rays in the mail. 120 negative films sent to them around the same time were all fine.</p>

<p>Your unexposed Kodak film from the 40's or 50's is obviously many. many years past its "Process before" date, so would likely have deteriorated for anything other than "experimental" use now. A collector or enthusiast might find it of interest.<br>

If the film <em>had</em> been used, it would still be possible to try to recover some of the old pictures from it...if this were the case, and you were not familiar with doing film processing yourself, you would probably be best to use one of the specialist "old film" recovery labs. The usual local developing and printing services (not that there are many of these left now!) would just use the standard processing, which is not the best for ancient films.<br>

As others have said, Velox was Kodak's own brand of "contact" paper for making same-size prints from negatives. It was quite "slow" (i.e. less sensitive to light), so could be used and processed in a darkroom with a comfortable level of orange or red light. Very similar brands of paper were made by all the main photographic manufacturers (Ilford, Agfa, etc.)...I think that Kodak were mentioning it "for best results" just to encourage snappers to use their brands!</p>

<p> </p>