shanghai and other cheap film ...

[domenico Foschi]

You missed my point.

The reason that the film produced by these maunfactures is so wrought with problems is because the coating machines are just plain worn out and should have been scrapped 20 years ago. The people that are running them are inexperienced and do not have any ownership of the product produced. I heard that at times defects are as high as 50% and they do not even bat an eyelash. They keep pumping it out. Cheap buys as much loyalty to the product in manufacturing as it does in the consuming segment. These manufacturers are taking advantage of the fact that there are a lot of tight wads in the film consuming arena that want film and are obviously not very concerned about what they are getting.

When the masters you mentioned above acquired the state of the art film technology during ther era the coating machines used were virtually brand new and the companies that produced this product were dedicated 100% to producing the best quality film possible and all was quite well. And yes, the results proved it. That is NOT the case as we speak. Much of the stuff many people are acquiring is wrought with a myriad of defects that is simply unacceptable to me. Others may not have such a descriminating mindset. If it is worth my time to make a photograph, I want to make the best one possible. I will not take any chance with the film I chose to make it with - period.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers!

Michael, when you are talking about the machines being worn out and the quality control being non existent, are you talking because of factual knowledge or are they just conjectures?
Is it true for both Era and Foma?
Where can I read about these info other that your own voice?
I am truly satisfied with Foma, more than I was with Ilford.
I do have noticed that the back of the sheets is not exactly smooth, but It doesn't seem to be a problem in the printing stage.

[John Kasaian]

I don't think of Foma or Efke as being "second tier" and considering that Efke's plant was blown up a few years ago--to the extent that film production was halted--- I would guess that their machines are probably quite modern.

But aren't we comparing apples to oranges here?

If you want a sheet films faster than iso 200 then Kodak and Ilford are still the only games in town while the so called "second tier" manufacturers are well represented in slower emulsions while Foma comes close with a 200 ISO sheet film and I intend to explore that product as an alternative to TXP should Kodak keep screwing with the costs of packaging of TXP (but that is another story.)

As far as Lucky and Shanghai goes, wasn't Lucky purportedly owned in part by Kodak? If so I would think Lucky would likely be pretty good stuff. Those who have reported using it seem to think so as well. I don't know anything about Shanghai film though.

What film you use ultimately depends on what your expectations are and what you can afford. Not so very long ago the difference between various manfacturers of 8x10 sheet film varied in price by a small amount (in the US) and I standardized on Ilford and Kodak emulsions, but I find that I can work quite well with Foma and Efke products though, partially as a result of Ilford's reorganization which created a temporary availability problem a few years back, followed by Kodak's temporary halt when production was transferred to a new, reportedly "dust free" factory.

The lesson I've learned is to shoot what you have confidence in and can afford rather than relying on brand names or the color of the box the film comes in. Keep your fridge and freezer stocked to carry you through availabillity snafus and shoot as often as possible to get to know what your film of choice is capable of as well as what you are capable of!

Oh, and Foma 100 is lovely stuff!

[domenico Foschi]

Second is using the best technology and coating operations available. When you are coating with a circa 1950/1960 machine, your emulsion tolerances are +/- 5% and possibly greater. Modern electronic coating machines are +/- a fraction of a percent. Plus, old school emulsion formulas relative to the prints that they can produce cannot hold a candle to modern emulsions including the T grain emulsions.
Cheers!

You don't mention at all wearing out of machine parts in this post, but you actually say that is the old technology the cause of the problem together with the poor quality control, wherever that info comes from.

[Jiri Vasina]

...
Is it true for both Era and Foma?
...

The quality control of Foma is not stellar, but it's good. Sometimes there might be some issues, but I personally have not yeat experienced them. And I have shot tens of rolls and over 400 sheets of Fomapan.

[Jiri Vasina]

If you want a sheet films faster than iso 200 then Kodak and Ilford are still the only games in town while the so called "second tier" manufacturers are well represented in slower emulsions while Foma comes close with a 200 ISO sheet film and I intend to explore that product as an alternative to TXP should Kodak keep screwing with the costs of packaging of TXP (but that is another story.)

Here in the Czech Republic (where Foma's factory actually is) I have been unable to acquire Fomapan 200 in sheets in any size. I have also contacted the factory directly, the representative shop too. Nothing of it. And don't count on it to be fast film. It's true speed is around ei 125 or maximum ei 160.

I have also been unable to find anything in sheets faster than 200 that was not from Ilford or Kodak (maybe Fuji too?)

[domenico Foschi]

Jiri,
thank you.
I was actually Asking Michael because I feel he was generalizing a bit too much. I use Foma and I am fond of it.

[Colin Graham]

You missed my point.

These manufacturers are taking advantage of the fact that there are a lot of tight wads in the film consuming arena that want film and are obviously not very concerned about what they are getting.

Just my $0.02.

Cheers!

Maybe you should recuse yourself from threads like this if you have a financial stake in the Kodak runs. In the least your motive appears to be getting people to buy only Kodak products to secure it's future. But whatever. For me the day will soon come when it's 2nd tier film or no film at all; already TMY 12x20 is $5 more a sheet than fp4+, which itself is on the cusp of affordability as we speak. I'm very interested in other's experiences with these 'inferior' products so when the time comes I can make an informed decision. To suggest that cheapness is the main motivation behind these decisions is arrogant and ludicrous.

I have never had even a hint of any quality control issues with T Max 400 sheet film in the four years I have used it exclusively. It is always cut to perfect proportions. Their $75 million dollar state of the art coating machine and the technology they use to evaluate the coated emulsion and avoid even a hint of a section is as good as it gets. It lets me sleep at night knowing that there are no surprises each time I pull the dark slide. You get what you pay for....

I used efke for 3-4 years as well before the first defects showed up. And I used it because I loved the film, not because it was cheap.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

Maybe you should recuse yourself from threads like this if you have a financial stake in the Kodak runs. In the least your motive appears to be getting people to buy only Kodak products to secure it's future. But whatever. For me the day will soon come when it's 2nd tier film or no film at all; already TMY 12x20 is $5 more a sheet than fp4+, which itself is on the cusp of affordability as we speak. I'm very interested in other's experiences with these 'inferior' products so when the time comes I can make an informed decision. To suggest that cheapness is the main motivation behind these decisions is arrogant and ludicrous.



I used efke for 3-4 years as well before the first defects showed up. And I used it because I loved the film, not because it was cheap.

Colin, you are way off base here. Michael has no financial interest on this deal and in fact he has the means to buy a special run for him if he wanted to. He does not need us to get the film he wants in the format he wants, he is doing this and using his connections to provide a service to the LF community with no reward to him.

Most importantly and I think the point he was trying to make and it was missed,is that uncertainty is not a desirable quality in film when you are trying to sell your work. As you say, you used efke for 3 years before you found a flaw, but what if that flawed negative was your moonrise or pepper #30? What if that ruined negative was the one shot that would make you well known and your work sought after?

I don't know about you, but I am not willing to take that chance. I have spent a lot of time and money getting the technical side of photography out of the way to have it come to a screeching halt because of lack of QC. Yes, a 12x20 sheet on this deal will be $17, but my peace of mind is worth more than the 7 or 8 dollars difference that I would save if I buy any of the cheap brands. BTW, buying two boxes will be a financial hardship for me, so I understand your feelings, I am also aware that will come a time when Kodak products will price themselves out of my range, they are getting close with that stupid 10 sheet per box and 25% increase in price, but till that time comes, I will try to buy the best I can afford to make sure that if the picture is not good it was my fault, not the fault of the materials.

[Colin Graham]

So, calling people tight wads who can't afford TMY isn't off-base? OK, my mistake. But then I'm really not interested in the motivations of others anyway, only in continuing to do what I love doing, within my own financial restraints. My main issue was with the apparent lack of respect for those working withing their means. No one need point out to me that inconsistency isn't a desirable trait in film, that you get what you pay for, and all those semi-precious gems that tend to accompany well-intentioned threads like this. As mentioned I've had a once-in-a-lifetime cross country trip ruined by coating chatter. But on that trip I had no choice, it was that film or no film at all. That's the only no-brainer here as far as I can tell. I still wouldn't take back the experience or the effort for anything.

But I do apologize if it seemed like I was accusing Michael of anything other than poor manners.

[John Kasaian]

Use what you're comfortable with. All the producers are going through "interesting" times. The more players in the game the better for all of us!