Bergger Versus Forte

I can not remember whether it was in this forum that
the question of whether these 200 speed films are the
same was ask. Never the less I have done a side by side
comparision, by my intial test it appears they are not.

I shot both 120 rolls under identical conditions, controlled
ambient daylight, metering from a centrally positioned
grey card. Both films were processed using the Bergger suggested
PMK time of 12 minutes, I processed both rolls in the same tank
using 500ml of solution, dilution was 1+2+100 at 68F. I did add a pinch of
amidol to increase the overall speed for both films.

The end result, appears that Bergger produced both a denser
and more highly stained roll of negatives. The difference is what I estimate to
be approximately 20 %....for both stain and density.

Perhaps as was stated by someone else the film is made at the same plant using
Bergger's specification. The paper backing is the same, the film base appears the same,
spools and paper tape the same.

Anythoughts?
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

Gregory W Blank wrote

The paper backing is the same, the film base appears the same,
spools and paper tape the same.

Anythoughts?

"the same" ... "the same" ... "the same"

So what's not the same? Batch, storage, and age. Dan

In article ,
(Dan Quinn) wrote:

Gregory W Blank wrote

The paper backing is the same, the film base appears the same,
spools and paper tape the same.

Anythoughts?

"the same" ... "the same" ... "the same"

So what's not the same? Batch, storage, and age. Dan

Upon scanning the two seperate makers film the images
are very very close in terms of grain structure and contrast. Visually
looking at the film side by side Bergger has more stain, and perhaps
a little more density. It could be the result of more silver or emulsion
chemistry,....or just a thicker batch. I processed them in the same soup
and the same tank together.

Forte packaging says made in Hungry by Forte Photochemical Co Ltd.
Bergger says made in E.U.

If both are made in at one plant the packaging is purposefully misleading.

The Forte film also exhibits in scanning more artifacts ( what appears as
white dust or scratches in the emulsion)

My feeling is that the films are somehow the same,.....but its very hard to
prove conclusively. A mystery of sorts.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

Who cares?

If you get good pictures from it use it!

I don't care if you get good pictures from mud off your boot, if it's good
it is good. Why not spend your valuable time trying to determine what is
good?

Great artists never spent much time trying to discover the content of one
another's canvas, paint or brushes. They studied the light, the content,
the image. NOT THE CHEMISTRY.


"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| (Dan Quinn) wrote:
|
| Gregory W Blank wrote
|
| The paper backing is the same, the film base appears the same,
| spools and paper tape the same.
|
| Anythoughts?
|
| "the same" ... "the same" ... "the same"
|
| So what's not the same? Batch, storage, and age. Dan
|
| Upon scanning the two seperate makers film the images
| are very very close in terms of grain structure and contrast. Visually
| looking at the film side by side Bergger has more stain, and perhaps
| a little more density. It could be the result of more silver or emulsion
| chemistry,....or just a thicker batch. I processed them in the same soup
| and the same tank together.
|
| Forte packaging says made in Hungry by Forte Photochemical Co Ltd.
| Bergger says made in E.U.
|
| If both are made in at one plant the packaging is purposefully misleading.
|
| The Forte film also exhibits in scanning more artifacts ( what appears as
| white dust or scratches in the emulsion)
|
| My feeling is that the films are somehow the same,.....but its very hard
to
| prove conclusively. A mystery of sorts.
| --
| LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
|
| For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768
resolution

In article ,
"Glenn Arden" wrote:

Who cares?

If you get good pictures from it use it!

I don't care if you get good pictures from mud off your boot, if it's good
it is good. Why not spend your valuable time trying to determine what is
good?

Great artists never spent much time trying to discover the content of one
another's canvas, paint or brushes. They studied the light, the content,
the image. NOT THE CHEMISTRY.

Sorry but I want to at least in part, say Bull **** ! Leonardo and many other artists have
had a great sense of wonder and always questioned. Plus testing and darkroom analysis
is a portion of what I do. I don't strive to be great artist, I am,..... by that I mean you have to
love what you do and understand it to gain something which will continue to inspire you towards
more.

If you live for praise you"ll never recieve it or appreciate
it from the mouths of others. The best praise I want is the satisfaction understanding how
I made something I deem good or great.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

"Glenn Arden" wrote in message om...
Who cares?

If you get good pictures from it use it!

I don't care if you get good pictures from mud off your boot, if it's good
it is good. Why not spend your valuable time trying to determine what is
good?

Great artists never spent much time trying to discover the content of one
another's canvas, paint or brushes. They studied the light, the content,
the image. NOT THE CHEMISTRY.


"Gregory W Blank" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| (Dan Quinn) wrote:
|
| Gregory W Blank wrote
|
| The paper backing is the same, the film base appears the same,
| spools and paper tape the same.
|
| Anythoughts?
|
| "the same" ... "the same" ... "the same"
|
| So what's not the same? Batch, storage, and age. Dan
|
| Upon scanning the two seperate makers film the images
| are very very close in terms of grain structure and contrast. Visually
| looking at the film side by side Bergger has more stain, and perhaps
| a little more density. It could be the result of more silver or emulsion
| chemistry,....or just a thicker batch. I processed them in the same soup
| and the same tank together.
|
| Forte packaging says made in Hungry by Forte Photochemical Co Ltd.
| Bergger says made in E.U.
|
| If both are made in at one plant the packaging is purposefully misleading.
|
| The Forte film also exhibits in scanning more artifacts ( what appears as
| white dust or scratches in the emulsion)
|
| My feeling is that the films are somehow the same,.....but its very hard
to
| prove conclusively. A mystery of sorts.
| --
| LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank
|
| For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768
resolution

I'm going to ask you guys to split the difference here.

There's a place for finding the best whole solution
as well as a place for satisfaction with good, quality results.
One can make fine prints from TMax, but I don't like the results
myself.
Is there something better? I only wish Acros was available in 8x10!

Before the 20th C. many oil painters had to perfect their own pigments
to their own specifications. It was craft and art, same as much of
photography today.

Just enjoy it.

Collin

"Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel"
-- a meaningless, non-political sig. line meant to offend nobody.

In article ,
(Collin Brendemuehl) wrote:

I'm going to ask you guys to split the difference here.

There's a place for finding the best whole solution
as well as a place for satisfaction with good, quality results.
One can make fine prints from TMax, but I don't like the results
myself.
Is there something better? I only wish Acros was available in 8x10!

Try Delta 100 in PMK, or D23.
--
LF website http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank

For best results expand this window at least 6" at 1152 x 768 resolution

"Glenn Arden" wrote in message om...
Who cares?

If you get good pictures from it use it!

I don't care if you get good pictures from mud off your boot, if it's good
it is good. Why not spend your valuable time trying to determine what is
good?

Great artists never spent much time trying to discover the content of one
another's canvas, paint or brushes. They studied the light, the content,
the image. NOT THE CHEMISTRY.

Well, well. Another Fred Picker (rest his soul)!.

snip