Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Coffee With Mentors > Tom Abrahamsson of RapidWinder.com

Tom Abrahamsson of RapidWinder.com It is almost never that an inventor improves on a Leica product so that it is better than the original Leica product. Tom holds that distinction with his RapidWinder for Leica M rangefinders -- a bottom mounting baseplate trigger advance. In addition Tom manufacturers other Leica accessories such as his very popular Soft Release and MiniSoftRelease shutter releases. Tom is well known as one of the true Leica rangefinder experts, even by Leica. IMPORTANT READ THIS: CWE Forum hosts have moderation powers within their forum. Please observe copyright laws by not copying and posting their material elsewhere without permission.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 10-03-2011   #81
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,832
Why bother imitating Tri-X?

If you want something to look like Tri-X, then use Tri-X.

Did we not learn anything at all from the pictorialists? Use a medium to its best advantage. Contriving ways to make it look like something else is a waste of time and of the process's inherent qualities.

Or simply, if you want something to look like it was rendered in charcoal, get out the charcoal, not the water colors.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #82
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Furthermore there are
Filmotec (Germany)
Shanghai (China)
Tasma (Russia)
Ilford Suisse (Ilford Micrographic color film).
Just for the record, Tasma nowadays produces mainly technical films for non-photographic imaging applications. Their only photographic products are a few B/W movie films that are pretty much on the way out, and unperforated aerial photography films. The main customer for the movie stock seems to be the Russian railway company, who still uses them in automated defect monitoring for railroad tracks. The bulk of the remaining production are special-purpose films for medical (X-ray) and technical inspection applications. They don't seem to make any film that you could put into a camera directly without at least repackaging, possibly perforating it.

So while they do make film products, for a photographer there isn't really much in it.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #83
thegman
Registered User
 
thegman is offline
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Australia
Age: 37
Posts: 3,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Aren't you forgetting Ferrania? They still make 35mm color film, unless they called it quits. (In fact they may be the only ones making color print film in 100 ASA these days?)
Colour print film at 100 ASA in production, Kodak Ektar, Fujifilm Reala, AgfaPhoto Vista. There are also some Lomography ones, but they are probably the Agfa emulsions.
__________________
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #84
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
 
shadowfox's Avatar
 
shadowfox is offline
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,822
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
As far as my own modest aesthetic requirements are concerned, I think I can live without Tri-X with no problem... This sample picture is a digital conversion, it might not hold up to pixel peeping but to me it looks Tri-x'ish enough. The method of conversion takes less than five minutes... And I can apply the same conversion preset to other RAW files which gives me consistent look... And this is a RAW from a two year old p&s...
Sure, but your statements here only represent people who tweak digital photos in computers *exclusively*.

Remember that there are still a lot of people who print the negatives optically and enjoy doing so.

Given that the loss of Tri-X will not stop me from using other films and keep printing, but the *trend* of losing choices means increasing cost to the consumers, which also will have a negative impact on newcomers to photography who would like to experience film photography. You may not believe it, but there are young people who like darkroom printing.

Schizophrenia of film vs digital? not for me, it's fun to use both (in some instances, even to *combine* the two)
__________________
Have a good light,
Will



Last edited by shadowfox : 10-03-2011 at 09:40.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #85
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
The look of b&w photograph is a standard set by b&w film and tri-x especially, so unless a new look is invented this standard has to be followed for those who're after this particular look.
Yes and the pictorialists thought photographs should look like paintings because that's what people were used to.

Then photographers realized that they ought to just get on with what photography does, and forget imitating other mediums.

In other words the less digital photographers focus on imitation, the faster the inherent visual qualities of digital will be accepted as "normal".
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #86
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
Colour print film at 100 ASA in production, Kodak Ektar, Fujifilm Reala, AgfaPhoto Vista. There are also some Lomography ones, but they are probably the Agfa emulsions.
I believe the lomography films are made by Ferrania. I heard that the Agfa films were too, but there seems to be confusion on this point.

I'd quite forgotten about Ektar and Reala though.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #87
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
The look of b&w photograph is a standard set by b&w film and tri-x especially, so unless a new look is invented this standard has to be followed for those who're after this particular look.

I can get the same look with film and with digital (at least 85% with digital). That 15% is lost in computer monitors and something that future software will take care of... The expense and time for film also makes that 15% acceptable, and before someone jumps about film being cheap, I should say that I'm not one-roll-a-month photographer, I shoot a lot because I'm not good enough to "get it" in one shot...
Have you ever seen a good black and white silver halide print, let alone made one? Yes, it's very easy to make a mediocre imitation that looks OK on a computer monitor. But it's very, very difficult to duplicate the look of a good wet print for even a modest range of subjects, and (I suspect) impossible to do it with all of them.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #88
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 40
Posts: 2,965
What ever happened to the notion of craft for the sake of personal satisfaction?
One may make a nice rocking chair by hand just to sit in and be satisfied that it was made by hand, by oneself.

The same goes for photography. Why do we all need to have others pay attention to us and what we make? Perhaps a lot of us are very happy with creating "squat" for the sake of its creation and participating in the craft from beginning to end.

Phil Forrest

Last edited by Phil_F_NM : 10-03-2011 at 10:23.
  Reply With Quote

Don't sell Kodak short
Old 10-03-2011   #89
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 819
Don't sell Kodak short

Quote:
Originally Posted by thegman View Post
I really hope Kodak comes through this . . .
I agree with sentiment and with all those of you whom have expressed relative optimism about the survival of Kodak or Kodak products. Apparently, the company's problems are not as severe as Wall Street has made them out to be, and they certainly are not about to go bankrupt. The most likely scenarios are either they will be bought out by another firm, or they will return to profitability. Let's hope for the later. It would be too bad to see such a storied firm fade away. See analysis here
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2971...ff-is-overdone
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #90
Nigel Meaby
Registered User
 
Nigel Meaby's Avatar
 
Nigel Meaby is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Bournemouth, England.
Age: 47
Posts: 846
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Hicks View Post
Have you ever seen a good black and white silver halide print, let alone made one? Yes, it's very easy to make a mediocre imitation that looks OK on a computer monitor. But it's very, very difficult to duplicate the look of a good wet print for even a modest range of subjects, and (I suspect) impossible to do it with all of them.

Cheers,

R.
I'm with you 100% Roger and I'm sure the majority who have ever produced a print in the darkroom are too. But don't take the bait from Claacct. The more he writes the more it is evident that either he doesn't know what he is talking about or he is trolling on this forum. I mean what is the point of giving us a poor example of a picture that "looks like Tri-X" on a computer screen?!! That tells me all I need to know about Claacct
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Photography is an amatuer's art form
Old 10-03-2011   #91
traveler_101
American abroad
 
traveler_101 is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Oslo, Norway
Posts: 819
Photography is an amatuer's art form

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil_F_NM View Post
What ever happened to the notion of craft for the sake of personal satisfaction?
One may make a nice rocking chair by hand just to sit in and be satisfied that it was made by hand, by oneself.

The same goes for photography. Why do we all need to have others pay attention to us and what we make? Perhaps a lot of us are very happy with creating "squat" for the sake of its creation and participating in the craft from beginning to end.

Phil Forrest
Yes, film photography is more craft-like. Who will see the photograph if it isn't on Facebook. I will see it; my friends and family will see it. That's enough in itself as Phil suggests above, but if I am good enough, people viewing exhibits will see it . One's idea is that we should all be defined by electronically mediated culture. Perhaps I shouldn't assign books to students anymore. They can read blogs instead.

Last edited by Doug : 10-04-2011 at 02:44. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #92
Nomad Z
Registered User
 
Nomad Z is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
My satisfaction is going out, walking for hours, and trying to capture something that satisfies me... Sitting on my bum in front of the fire and admiring prints is not for me...
You'd rather sit on your bum and admire the limited tonal range and graduation of a computer monitor?
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #93
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nigel Meaby View Post
I mean what is the point of giving us a poor example of a picture that "looks like Tri-X" on a computer screen?!! That tells me all I need to know about Claacct
In all fairness, this forum is full of people who can look at 640x480 pixel JPEGs for hours on end and discuss how they subtly express the gorgeous blacks of Tri-X in whatever your favourite developer is, or how they illustrate the sharpness and micro-contrast achievable with the Leica lens of your choice.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #94
Nomad Z
Registered User
 
Nomad Z is offline
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
Do I have a choice?
Of course.

Last edited by Doug : 10-04-2011 at 02:41.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #95
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,061
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Aren't you forgetting Ferrania? They still make 35mm color film, unless they called it quits. (In fact they may be the only ones making color print film in 100 ASA these days?)
Hard to determine - Ferrania once called it quits in 2008, but may have revoked since that. I haven't been able to find any authoritative information on whether they merely sell off their stores or are still actively producing.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #96
IK13
Registered User
 
IK13 is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
In all fairness, this forum is full of people who can look at 640x480 pixel JPEGs for hours on end and discuss how they subtly express the gorgeous blacks of Tri-X in whatever your favourite developer is, or how they illustrate the sharpness and micro-contrast achievable with the Leica lens of your choice.
Well said!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #97
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
The tragedy is that all those "good wet prints" means squat if no one sees them or if they're scanned and put online --- not to mention to anyone who's not a photography nerd, which means 99.99% of normal people...

But also, a good wet print is a sheer waste of time and effort if its subject is yawn-inspiring...
Quite. In much the same way as nobody ever goes to photo exhibitions, or McDo doesn't have any Michelin stars.

There are always those who are perfectly happy with rubbish.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website

Last edited by Roger Hicks : 10-03-2011 at 11:59. Reason: OR not OF (rubbish typing)
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #98
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,207
I think all of the members here should buy the film division out and run it ourselfs.lol
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #99
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
You are demonstrating exactly the opposite of your point.
Technically, it's really an abysmal picture. And I'm usually not picky...
I would suggest to have a look at post #489 here:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/foru...=90895&page=20
to see how a picture can show more than 300 pixel and 4 levels of grey.

No offense, of course. You behave here with such a level of courtesy, I would hate to offend you.
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #100
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,832
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
If simple digital b&w was pleasing to the eye, it would have been accepted but its not...
I hate to tell you this, but compared to what we see naturally, ALL black and white looks quite weird. It is an acquired taste, period. Photographs were really quite shocking to most people in the 1840s, who had never seen anything like them before.

They look less weird to us because we've known them all of our lives. Eventually, digital will become accepted as the normal look, even if it isn't quite the same as what we are used to.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #101
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,207
The saddest part in I have only had my darkroom going a few weeks and also just learned, learning to use contrast filters and no plan to try dodging and burning. I have only just begun to appreciate Trix...
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #102
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
A photo is rubbish based on content, so if I were to photograph you in digital and convert it to b&w that won't mean that picture is rubbish because saying that will imply that the subject/you is rubbish.

But I also know that the photography world is divided between subject/content driven 'real' photography and technique and gear-fetishism 'hobby' photography...

In real photography all images are useful, even as examples of failure, in hobby photography only the 'good photos' count... But the plus side of real photography is that one can see the failure in the other side...
A good photograph transcends poor technique, it's true, but equally, if a picture is SO incompetent (either aesthetically or technically) that you notice the technique before the content -- if the photographer isn't actually in control of the medium -- then it's a bad picture whether the technique is 'too good' or 'too bad' for the subject matter.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #103
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
Eventually, digital will become accepted as the normal look, even if it isn't quite the same as what we are used to.
Yep ... ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #104
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NYC
Age: 43
Posts: 17,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
learning to use contrast filters and no plan to try dodging and burning...
Why not? It isn't that hard in most cases and it'll be very apparent when you need to do it... because it can be the difference between a mediocre print and a really good print.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #105
sanmich
Registered User
 
sanmich's Avatar
 
sanmich is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
The saddest part in I have only had my darkroom going a few weeks and also just learned, learning to use contrast filters and no plan to try dodging and burning. I have only just begun to appreciate Trix...
Why sad?
I think we are talking long term problems.
Nothing to worry about tomorrow morning (I hope...).
Enjoy your new darkroom!
__________________
Michael

Gloire a qui n'ayant pas d'ideal sacro-saint se borne a ne pas trop emmerder ses voisins (Brassens)

My site
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #106
paulfish4570
Registered User
 
paulfish4570's Avatar
 
paulfish4570 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lapine, in deep south Alabama
Age: 65
Posts: 10,176
well, i'd like to see kodak film survive so competition will keep ilford film from getting even more costly. ilford 35mm film dries flat. i like that ...
__________________
Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind ...
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #107
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,607
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
It took unusually long for someone to pick on that image and say its no good...

As long as you don't call people in the my image rubbish or no good, I'm flame proof against internet-photography-nerd-attacks... As far as the 'look' of that image is concerned, I'm very happy with it.
And film users are pretty much flameproof against digital nerd attacks, so I guess we're quits.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #108
DominikDUK
Registered User
 
DominikDUK's Avatar
 
DominikDUK is offline
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 922
claacct you have to like the pictures you make, no other opinion should really matter but yours. But you also have to accept that other people like or even love film and digital pictures do not look like film nor should they. It's like oil and watercolour some prefer the look of an oil painting and some people prefer the look of a watercolour but both are very different in look and feel just like analogue and digital photography. Watercolour might be the faster way to paint but the result will always look like a watercolour and not like an oil painting. Many photographers spent years to perfect the look they get with theri chosen films and a change in film might have a serious impact on their work and sometimes on their income, so saying simply convert a digipix to BW to get the Tri-X look is very naive to say the least.

Dominik
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #109
daninjc
Registered User
 
daninjc's Avatar
 
daninjc is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 279
No. A photo is rubbish based on BOTH content and technical realization. Same as any other artistic expression, including literature, painting, music, etc. If you fail in either content or technique you fail overall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
A photo is rubbish based on content, so if I were to photograph you in digital and convert it to b&w that won't mean that picture is rubbish because saying that will imply that the subject/you is rubbish.
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #110
StillKicking
Registered User
 
StillKicking is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 124
Eastman Kodak Co. shares soared more than 57 percent Monday
__________________
M3, M9, Rolleiflex 3.5 B and Rolleicord II

Advice and constructive criticism always welcome..
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #111
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,607
Hey! NO good news is allowed! Especially about Kodak, Ilford, Leica...

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #112
jan normandale
Film is the other way
 
jan normandale's Avatar
 
jan normandale is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: on Location
Posts: 3,902
Quote:
Originally Posted by claacct View Post
As far as my own modest aesthetic requirements are concerned, I think I can live without Tri-X with no problem... This sample picture is a digital conversion, it might not hold up to pixel peeping but to me it looks Tri-x'ish enough. The method of conversion takes less than five minutes... And I can apply the same conversion preset to other RAW files which gives me consistent look... And this is a RAW from a two year old p&s...

Toronto's Chinatown...
__________________
RFF Gallery
flickr
Blog

it's all about light
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #113
Lilserenity
Registered User
 
Lilserenity is offline
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Worthing, W Sx
Age: 33
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith View Post
It seems that way but to be honest the digital negative (raw) and multiple software options to make it look how you want are out there ... choose not to use them and you probably won't be a photographer in the future.

I'm not saying that this is the scenario that I would prefer personally ... I'm just aknowledging it.
This is something I absolutely agree with, it's something I have come to accept over the past few months. I'm still going to go ahead and buy myself an F80 and hopefully if the book goes alright, a 50 and 28mm prime. That's an investment that should/when the day comes to looking at getting a D700 I have built something I can transition to.

We'll see what happens, in the meantime, I got some pictures to take

Vicky
__________________
Thank you to all those who registered for my book, Impression Milton Keynes - The book IS NOW OUT. Purchase your copy of the book
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #114
FrankS
Registered User
 
FrankS's Avatar
 
FrankS is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Canada, eh.
Age: 59
Posts: 19,390
Gentlemen, let's cease and desist from making personal comments/attacks. While I do not agree with the sentiments of some of the posts in this thread, everyone has a right to express an opinion.
__________________
my little website: http://frankfoto.jimdo.com/

photography makes me happy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-03-2011   #115
f16sunshine
Moderator
 
f16sunshine's Avatar
 
f16sunshine is offline
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Seattle
Age: 48
Posts: 5,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by cosmonaut View Post
The saddest part in I have only had my darkroom going a few weeks and also just learned, learning to use contrast filters and no plan to try dodging and burning. I have only just begun to appreciate Trix...

Great to hear you are enjoying wet printing. I would not be too sad just yet. IF Kodak dies most likely it's best assets will be sold and continue on. The idea that Kodak dies and everything disappears is unlikely. I think we will safely have some of legendary BW immersions for some time to come. Last Friday I bought a few dozen rolls of Tmax400 120 to show my support and to load up for the winter. Not because I was worried it would be gone anytime soon. Buy some film/developer/paper. My 2c
__________________
Andy
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2011   #116
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by rxmd View Post
Just for the record, Tasma nowadays produces mainly technical films for non-photographic imaging applications. Their only photographic products are a few B/W movie films that are pretty much on the way out, and unperforated aerial photography films. The main customer for the movie stock seems to be the Russian railway company, who still uses them in automated defect monitoring for railroad tracks. The bulk of the remaining production are special-purpose films for medical (X-ray) and technical inspection applications. They don't seem to make any film that you could put into a camera directly without at least repackaging, possibly perforating it.

So while they do make film products, for a photographer there isn't really much in it.
Yes and no, afaik the BW sheet films Spürsinn in Germany is offering are made by Tasma.

Cheers, Jan

Last edited by HHPhoto : 10-04-2011 at 02:28. Reason: typo
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2011   #117
HHPhoto
Registered User
 
HHPhoto is offline
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1,023
Quote:
Originally Posted by tunalegs View Post
I believe the lomography films are made by Ferrania. I heard that the Agfa films were too, but there seems to be confusion on this point.

I'd quite forgotten about Ektar and Reala though.
The situation with Ferrania and Lomography is

- Lomo get their color negative films from Ferrania

- Ferrania stopped coating in 2009, but they still do cutting and spooling of film; now they get their color negative films from Kodak (master rolls)

- the Lomo X-Pro 100 slide film is from Kodak as well

- the Lomo X-Pro 200 slide film is from Agfa-Gevaert

- the Lomo earl grey and lady grey BW films are from Foma afaik

- the Lomo X-Pro Tungsten is from Fuji

Cheers, Jan
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2011   #118
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
 
rxmd's Avatar
 
rxmd is offline
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Kyrgyzstan
Posts: 5,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by HHPhoto View Post
Yes and no, afaik the BW sheet films Spürsinn in Germany is offering are made by Tasma.
Never tried them. Could be, even though Tasma doesn't make ISO 50 or 25 films, I think. But then we don't know when Spürsinn had their batch made. Or maybe they're creative with their ISO ratings.
__________________
Bing! You're hypnotized!
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2011   #119
Uncle Bill
Registered User
 
Uncle Bill's Avatar
 
Uncle Bill is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Oakville (somewhere west of Toronto) Ontario, Canada
Posts: 892
I'm not worried, Kodak will probably enter Chapter 11, sell a few divisions off, get a new senior management team. Worst case someone will pick up the film division and rights to the Kodak name. The big question is, who picks up the sensor business?
__________________
Leica M3 and M4-2, Rolleicord IV, Rolleiflex Series E 3.5 Planar version 1<a
http://flickr.com/photos/funwithcameras
http://funwithcameras.blogspot.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 10-04-2011   #120
RObert Budding
Registered User
 
RObert Budding is offline
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Arlington, Massachusetts
Posts: 1,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Bill View Post
I'm not worried, Kodak will probably enter Chapter 11, sell a few divisions off, get a new senior management team. Worst case someone will pick up the film division and rights to the Kodak name. The big question is, who picks up the sensor business?
Exactly right!
__________________
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true."
~Robert Wilensky

"He could be right, he could be wrong. I think he's wrong but he says it in such a sincere way. You have to think he thinks he's right."
~ Bob Dylan
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:20.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.