Re: [APML] FILM QUESTIONS!! Kodak response to film production questions (really on topic!)

[Grant <GB1029@inter-linc.net>]

Hi Bert,

Although I haven't used any ppf, that would be my vote.
I've been using supra400 and love it!  But hey..If we can
get a discontinued film like ppf back into production, all the better.
If that's asking too much from kodak, then supra has my vote.
As far as format...as of now, I only use 35mm.
But I suspect I'll eventually move to medium format.

Grant

At 02:32 PM 4/18/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi Folks:
>The question of the Kodak connection sort of dropped off the radar screens
>for a while, but it's now back with a direct query from that Kodak vp  I've
>been e-corresponding with. Here's how it came up: About a week ago I  sent
>him some data from Don Westergren, who is doing a scientific test of
>reciprocity failure (out to two+ hours) in most of the popular print films,
>plus my own imaging results using Supra800, plus Pat Freeman's web URL,
>since Pat has some excellent and extensive real-world test images on his
>site. Kodak replied "very interesting, it will take me a while to review all
>this." Yesterday I sent him some additional data from Don's testing showing
>very quantitatively how the red layer drops after a few seconds exposure in
>Supra800 and Portra800. WITHIN 4 HOURS  I got an e-mail from Kodak saying
>"VERY INTERESTING! Kodak never checks for reciprocity failure past 100
>seconds." (Of course we knew that from the Kodak tech tables.) Continuing,
>he said "Of course a decision to manufacture an emulsion in 120 format
>requires some assurance of use by the professional community.... What is
>your estimate of the use of one of these films (I had referred to Royal
>Gold400, Supra400, PJ400, and PPF400) in 120 format by people in astronomy?"
>
>So here are some questions for APML:
>1. If you could specify ONE Kodak 400 speed color print film to be available
>in both 35 and 120 format, which would it be?
>2. How much of each size would you buy per year? (recognize that if the film
>you choose is Supra or Royal Gold, the minimum required to interest Kodak
>would be much smaller since Kodak still produces these two films in large
>quantities for 35mm format)
>3. Should we just bag the whole thing and go with E200 and Provia 400F for
>120?
>4. Related question: While I don't really think that all the astroimagers in
>the world can use up enough film to convince Kodak to reactivate a major
>line of films, it would be useful if we could evoke a response from astro
>people outside the APML community. Anybody know how to do that? I would be
>happy to put out messages (like the above) if someone can point me in the
>right direction. I think Warren Keller started this whole thing---Warren,
>did you have any contacts with lists outside APML?
>
>
>I would be interested in seeing your responses to these questions on APML
>for as long as Gene considers it worth the bandwidth and as soon as he says
>"enough" you can e-mail me directly. (That will teach me to send a letter to
>Kodak! (;~))    BTW, some of Don's GREAT data should be available shortly.
>
>Bert
>
>Bert Katzung
>katzung1@attbi.com
>www.astronomy-images.com
>
>
>
>
>--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
>              Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>


--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>