ORWO b&w film?

In article bdsPf.72217$_A4.8061@trnddc06,
"eM eL" writes:

"Rod Smith" wrote in message news:8lq0e3-
Do you have a reference to an actual news story or press release about
this? I'm not trying to challenge the claim, just get solid information
rather than Usenet hearsay.

As for the news references, you'll need to find the actual references
yourself. I remember stories about it in Shutterbug, Photo Techniques and --
perhaps, but I'm not certain -- in Pop Photo.

If the information was published in photo magazines then it's probably
reliable. FWIW, I did some digging and found a few Usenet and other forum
posts about this dating back as early as 1997, but they're all lacking
detail and attribution.

Generally there is a lot of doubt about t/delta grain in films outside the
big three (Kodak, Ilford, Fuji) because of the multitude of patents and
expensive R&D which would be difficult to recoup because of low sales, etc.

Concerning patents, Kodak T-grain films date back to at least 1988 (T-Max
3200; http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/koda...980_1989.shtml). That
means that the basic T-grain patents are likely to be at least this old,
which in turn means they've probably already expired. (Patents issued in
the US at that time lasted for 17 years.) I haven't actually done a patent
search, though.

--
Rod Smith,
http://www.rodsbooks.com
Author of books on Linux, FreeBSD, and networking

nailer wrote:
many years ago I wedded very nice girl (then).
All my photos were taken on Agfacolor 80S, Agfachrome 50S and Ilford
HP5 or HP4, can't remember.
Deliberately I rejected Ektachromes and Kodacolor films.
The reason - MUCH better results.

I have been comparative-testing materials since 1968 or so. I have used
all the major brands (Adox, Ilford, Fuji, Kodak, Agfa, Ansco, dPont,
Tetenal, Paterson, Plymouth-Ethol, etc.) of films, papers, and
developers. Ilford HP4 was inferior to Tri-X. HP5, when it came out in
1979 or so, was a huge improvement over HP4. I switched from Tri-X to
HP5 at that time, even though I had used HP4 sporadically despite its
inferiority to Tri-X.

Agfa papers, but not their films, have been available in the US for
decades. One can only surmise that their films were not competitive
with Kodak's. That was confirmed for me when I tried the new 'improved'
APX 400 last year. It was not even close to Tri-X. In fact, APX 400 is
horribly grainy. It looks like a 1950s-era film, at best. Although I
never used Portriga Rapid, I was never able to get decent prints with
Brovira. duPont, Kodak, and Ilford papers were very similar, but not
rovira. Something about its curve made it impossible for me to get
highlight detail with negatives that printed just fine with other
papers. Rodinal is crap.




On Tue, 7 Mar 2006 17:10:37 +0100, (Ralf R.
Radermacher) wrote:

#UC wrote:
#
# Hell, even AGFA products were second-tier!
#
#Oh, sure. As if further proof was needed that you are just as much of
a
#waste of time as your trolling friends emel and Crapitti.
#
#Ralf