RE: [APML] Kodak ROYAL 400

[Jerry Lodriguss <jml@astropix.com>]

Pat,

Thanks, that's very useful information on your web page on how to tell the 
difference.

JErry

At 07:07 AM 9/3/2002 -0400, you wrote:

>I had the opportunity to make some side-by-side test exposures with the 
>old Royal Gold Select Series 400 and the new Royal Gold 400 over the 
>holiday weekend.  The results were stark and graphic.  The new stuff is, 
>unhypered anyway, useless now.  I put the results on my website, here s 
>the link:
>
><http://www.geocities.com/freeman_patrick/royal_gold_400_comparison.htm>htt 
>p://www.geocities.com/freeman_patrick/royal_gold_400_comparison.htm
>
>
>
>I also provide some additional details on how to distinguish between the 
>two films when purchasing.
>
>
>
>--- Pat Freeman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-astro-photo@seds.org [mailto:owner-astro-photo@seds.org] On 
>Behalf Of Leo S.
>Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 17:07 PM
>To: astro-photo@seds.org
>Subject: Re: [APML] Kodak ROYAL 400
>
>
>
>At 12:42 21/08/02 -0700, you wrote:
>
>The Kodak data sheet lists Royal Gold, Select Series, and refer to it always
>as Royal Gold.  The way to tell for sure is after development, look at the
>edge of the film.  The designation for RG 400 reads: "RC400-3 KODAK" and
>also: "ROYAL 400-3".  Since the marking calls itself Royal 400, you might
>have some of the good old stuff.  Trust Kodak to make it confusing.
>
>
>Ok thanks for the info Don,ill shoot a roll,the next chance i get.
>
>
>I haven't tested the new RG 400 yet, so I don't know how valuable the old
>film is.
>
>
>I know if it is the old(good stuff) ill be kicking myself if i don't put 
>it into "suspended animation" now ...i found a couple of rolls of K-25 
>which had been sitting in the same fairly dark/cool place where the Royal 
>400 was a few weeks back and froze them... i just hope not too late!!
>
>
>
>  In fact, hypering
>it made it lose sensitivity for long astrophotos.
>
>
>Exactly why i want it... with all this talk of films which perform well 
>unhypered being ditched in favour of improved emulsions at the moment!
>
>
>
>My recommendation for long term storage of unexposed film is the
>refrigerator rather than the freezer.  That is the way most professional
>film is stored.  I don't think freezing hurts it, since there should be no
>water in it to freeze.  I do freeze my film after hypering it, but that is
>usually for short term use.
>
>
>I've always thought freezing was the best way... well that's what i have 
>been led to believe anyway. Moisture shouldn't be an issue as films are 
>packaged in their canisters in a moisture free environment,and providing 
>they have not been opened and resealed,no moisture should be present to 
>harm the film.
>
>Storing at lower temperature in a freezer should also slow down any 
>chemical changes in the emulsion more than if in a fridge at a higher 
>temperature i would have thought also?
>
>Are there any other issues which i am unaware of perhaps?
>
>Leo


Astronomical photography: http://www.astropix.com




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