Is FujiFilm as good as, say, Kodachrome?

Ken Hart wrote:
> If you have some that was processed when it was 'fresh', you could shoot and
> process some now and compare the density of the edge of the frame. As the
> film ages, it will build up fog. You could also periodically shoot a
> greyscale target and check the densities of that. As you start losing
> contrast, then you should probably pick up the pace of your shooting. And
> by changing your developer, you may be able to counteract some of the
> effects of aging (The film's aging, not your own!)
>
> When I said "a year or two out of date", I probably should have mentioned
> that I'm pretty particular about color and contrast. Also, one brand might
> have substanially more frozen life than another.

Isn't Scala a black and white film? You should be able to get a decent
slide out of it by exposing a "test" subject with bracketed 1/4 or 1/8th
stops (if you can go the low) exposures and seeing which is best.

My guess from using old black and white film is that a useable neagtive
can be produced for many (20-30) years. All film fogs from exposure to
cosmic radiation (where did I put that lead lined freezer?) with ISO
1600 film starting to show noticable fog in a year or two. ISO 50 film
would need 32 times the exposure, ISO 100 16, to show the same fog, so
Scala is safe from that for a long time. Other sources of fogging may be
a problem first.

Or you could look into reversal processing of other films. One lab in
New York had good luck with Efke film and the Scala process. At one time
Kodak sold a reversal kit for regular film (I think it was Tri-X or
Plus-X) and later a similar kit for T-Max.

The kits are discontinued, but the formula has been published and at
least one third party sells a kit, which may or may not be exactly the
same, but should work.

I am partial to Ilford PAN-F, which is by my reconning the closest thing
to Kodak Panatomic-X still made. When Freestyle stopped carrying it as
their house brand, I was able to get several 100 foot rolls cheaply, and
they live in a 40F refrigerator.

It would be worth, IMHO, if you are up to the expermentation, to try a
roll of that in reversal processing along with the Efke KB-25. You might
just find a replacement for Scala.

More information can be obtained from rec.photo.darkroom.

Geoff.


--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel gsm RemoveThis @mendelson.com N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/

On 2008-02-15 04:49:06 -0500, gsm.TakeThisOut@mendelson.com (Geoffrey S. Mendelson) said:
....snip...

> Or you could look into reversal processing of other films. One lab in
> New York had good luck with Efke film and the Scala process. At one time
> Kodak sold a reversal kit for regular film (I think it was Tri-X or
> Plus-X) and later a similar kit for T-Max.
>
> The kits are discontinued, but the formula has been published and at
> least one third party sells a kit, which may or may not be exactly the
> same, but should work.
>
> I am partial to Ilford PAN-F, which is by my reconning the closest thing
> to Kodak Panatomic-X still made. When Freestyle stopped carrying it as
> their house brand, I was able to get several 100 foot rolls cheaply, and
> they live in a 40F refrigerator.
>
> It would be worth, IMHO, if you are up to the expermentation, to try a
> roll of that in reversal processing along with the Efke KB-25. You might
> just find a replacement for Scala.
>
> More information can be obtained from rec.photo.darkroom.
>
> Geoff.

Kodak marketed a b&w film for reversal processing called Kodak Direct
Positive film and sold the kit to process it. I don't think any
commercial labs did it, you had to do it yourself. Of course, back in
the 1960s there were a lot of us doing our own processing. But Kodak
also recommended processing Panatomic X in the chemistry rendering a
transparency. Pan X was a very fine grain very slow (ASA 32) negative
film and as I recall it was rated somewhat faster when processed as a
positive in that chemistry.

--
Michael