Talk:Photographic film

message: I'm not really sure who made the first sheet film. The Kodak no 1 camera was in 1888 is notable, but that was probably not the first sheet film? -- Egil 08:56 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)
Taking picture on a paper negative is as old as Fox Talbot in fact Eastman invented the rollfilm : several pictures on a film. The no 1 and other early Kodak were reloaded in the factory the paper tape allowing the user to load his camera came later. -- Ericd 13:11 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)
Is it really useful to have a list of all the films available on the market? -- Ericd 00:50, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First sheet film

message: Could anyone describe the difference of film formats (135, 120, 110.... ect.)
Someone (including me) may be interested why they are called by such numbers.
Thanks..... investorjoe 19:42 Oct 19 2004 (UTC)
That's a really good idea, actually... I'll write up another section, and move the "list of films" to a separate article while I'm at it.  Neckro 08:32, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Film formats

message: "Photographic film is a sheet of plastic (polyester, celluloid (nitrocellulose) or cellulose acetate) coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts (bonded by gelatin)"
Many vegeterians refuse to use photographic film for this reason. Why can't photographic film use synthetic gelatin?
because it doesn't exists... :( --Henriquevicente 03:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gelatin in film 

message: Invention commonly credited to Eastman, it was actually invented by David H. Houston in 1881. (Now if I could just recall the source...)  Trekphiler 18:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Roll film 

message: Is Solaris really a company? From what's available on the internet it looks like  Solaris is just a product line of Ferrania (which is already listed in the Companies that manufacture photographic film section). Can some with actual knowledge confirm that Solaris is also a company? Thanks. Csabo 20:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Solaris

message: Why was Film Camera merged into this article, vis-a-vis Digital camera? I am not a photography expert or even an enthusiast, but I must say I prefer film.  Leaving all that aside, however, is Film Camera no longer considered notable enough even to have its own article?  
What really wierded me out was a comment on another talk page where someone said "they still make 35mm film. hell, they EVEN still sell 35mm CAMERAS".  As if the product were completely obsolete, and evidence that you can find almost anything online! So I went on Wikipedia to learn about the history of film cameras and their current availability, only to find... no page dedicated to the subject.  
There's no point in being directed to 35 mm film if Nikon, Canon etc. have decided to stop making film cameras, and this info is buried on the relevant Wikipedia pages!  Not to mention the fact that the article on film cameras redirects here and that the main page for 35 mm references camera film only in passing. You have to click on an orphaned subpage, 125 film which is the only page that has extensive info on film cameras in one place. Having info like this would help reassure me that my old Nikon is still serviceable. 
Could someone with extensive film expertise Be Bold and remedy this?  See Film Camera. The fact that Digital camera exists is an argument for the notability of what seems like a pretty broad topic (yes, I know, WP:EXISTS. --berr 216.15.63.67 (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been a redirect since it was created in 2005; if you think a separate article is in order, create one, or make a split proposal.  Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Film camera article 

message: The statement is made "Black-and-white reversal film exists, but is uncommon." It is/was a common motion picture format (ex. Kodak Tri-X and Plus-X who share confusingly similar names to their still camera negative counterparts.)  I'll find some links to back this up, but the statement is confusing and false.  Should it be removed or just a parenthetical exception added with a reference?  The latter sounds messy, and the former sounds preferable to me, since the statement isn't necessarily an important one to make.  (Is it really important that B&W reversal stills film is/was uncommon?)  Micahmedia (talk) 18:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversal 

message: This list seems to be incomplete and out of order:
Fotokemika Efke ceased production in 2012 (no official statement that I am aware of, only third party statements)
Kentmere was acquired by Harmann/Ilford in 2007 but is still a separate production line and AFAIK still a separate company as well. Should it be mentioned?
Filmotec (ex-ORWO) is missing. They are still in production.
Inoviscoat makes film for Fotoimpex sold under the ADOX brand.
Slavich (Borisoglebskaya Sloboda, Russia) is AFAIK still in production.
For many of these I didn't find any official statements as sources. Can someone with deeper insight sort it out? --NonesensE (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Film Production Companies 

message: The section called Color makes this statement:
"By the 1970s color film predominated and the use of black-and-white film was increasingly confined to low-light and "art" photography and other niche applications."
This seems misleading.  Large Hollywood features were switching over to color in the late forties.  Unconquered 1947, Easter Parade 1948,  Samson and Delilah 1949 were top grossers in color. The top ten American box office films of the fifties were all in color. Mainstream films in BW were rare in the Sixties, at least in the US. And this is not limited to the US. For example film industry in India moved to color during the sixties. Already in 1960 Mughal-e Azam was in color.
Maybe the above statement could be phrased better.
Sukkoth 19:19, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Color may be Misleading 

message: User:Xo-whiplock edits have removed the lede section and replaced it with a personal reflection on the  current state of photographic film in 2015 and entirely unencyclopedic content…”Branding is fundamental. Branding is basic. Branding is essential. Building brands builds incredible value for companies and corporations." What on earth is that about? Theroadislong (talk) 20:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If the section "Currently (2015)" is to be included at all it needs to be at the end of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it, and thank you for bearing with me in my noob state.  Appreciate the help and direction.  I just want to update the page to reflect that film is not deserving of the kind of treatment is has received by the sweeping changes to photography in the last decade, and is still a viable medium for many photographers, which is increasing in numbers again.  You can see from the talk above this, that there was some problems during this time, and many were looking to "kill film" through remarks and bias.  Thankfully I believe that time has passed and film is re-establishing itself in the movie making world and the photographic world.  It won't be like a tidal wave as it was with digital, but a slow steady revival.  Why should "Currently (2015)" be moved to the end?  Is it inappropriate to place just before "History"?  What's the logic in putting it at the end?  I'd like it to be seen before one reads "History."  Also, the outside links in my lists, how to make those right?  I've read the template article on citations and can only manage the web links?Xo-whiplock (talk) 21:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the "Currently (2015)" section is still poorly placed at the beginning of the article. Nearly every article tends to start with the beginnings of the technology, not a treatise on its resurgence. I agree with Theroadislong's constructive comments, and while Xo-whiplock's edits were well-meaning, I think they interfere with the value of the article and the flow of the usual Wikipedia format. The rationale in placing the History section first is to describe the technology and its origins, and then proceed in a linear timeline to the present, not start at the present and work backwards, like some Benjamin Button. While the "Currently (2015)" section may have been well intentioned, the references do not support the text. The Calgary Herald article you cite is grossly incorrect, referring to "ambertypes" (not "ambrotypes") and "wet plates" as 1970's technology, when these were 19th century developments. The date of the development of digital photography is incorrect, and the first sentence of the paragraph that film was the only form of photography prior to digital is factually wrong. The information of "lomography" is based solely on their advertising website, and does not support the statements made concerning its professional use. Please consider the comments here and above constructively. We are intending to improve the readability, accuracy and usability of the article. N0TABENE (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entirely inappropriate edits 

message: I hope this is done correctly now.  I simply typed out the list and added a citation to the end, so external links show up in references now, instead of in the article.  I checked the spelling and looks good to me.  The grammar is something that looks good to me as well.  I removed the header tags for fixing external links and spelling and grammar.  If still not right, let me know where and what and how to fix it, or if you are skilled better, please help by fixing it instead of simply putting tags on the page.  Thanks. ;)Xo-whiplock (talk) 23:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a difference between WP:External links and a footnoted citations, which is why there are two separate templates. It is not helpful to move External Links to unspecified references. Also, consider the quality of the reference - many of the references you added in good-faith are merely personal blogs, opinion pieces and commercial promotional sites. N0TABENE (talk) 15:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected external links and checked spelling 

message: I am in the process of finding citations to support each section tagged with the citations needed tag.  Xo-whiplock (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please consider the quality of the added references - consider using recognized academic or reference textbooks, in lieu of opinions, commercial advertising or unreferenced web sources. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In the process of looking up citations for sections without any 

message: The gallery of images following the lede makes no sense. There are no captions accompanying the file images, they seem to be a random mix of positive and negative photo images and diagrams with no explanation or link to the text. Suggest moving unreferenced images to the end of the article, and providing in-line descriptions of the relevant diagrams referring to the layers of film and the H&D curve. N0TABENE (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Gallery Section

message: You all have at it.  I removed the "Currently (2015)" as the cites I used are not up to Wikipedia standards.  I removed the "gallery" as the added images are unwelcome (I could have move to bottom and added text, but since they are wikimedia, you just click on them and see the info on them.  I could have use them as icons and said, hey here's a famous color image, or a look at a negative, etc... truth is, this page is rife with stuff taken from other sources and not cited as it belonging to other writers.  The idea that there is a standard that wikipedia is after and say that my original efforts with inferior web page links does not measure up is too much.  Later...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xo-whiplock (talk • contribs) 00:41, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: I give up

message: I moved two footnotes from the Reference section and created a new Notes section. However, I am at a loss to find a reference for either comment. All search engine references to Edward's Isochromatic Plates seem to point back to a version of this Wikipedia article on other websites. If anyone is aware of the original source, I'd be grateful if you'd add the reference. IMO, neither comment is very important and doesn't add to the understanding of the topic - e.g. the first note comparing the amount of film to the area of Wales, and I think the article would be improved by deleting the two comments if there are no objections. Thanks. N0TABENE (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Theroadislong (talk) 07:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notes Section 

message: While the citation added (Applied Optical Measurements, edited by Markus Lehner, Dieter Mewes) mentions Agfa 10E75 and 10E56 holographic films, it does not mention the resolution of the films nor the comparative to CCD sensors. Since the technical discussion of the particular film was tagged as unsourced several months ago, and there has been no verifiable citation, this content should be  be deleted unless a verifiable source for that information is provided. NotaBene 鹰百利  Talk 18:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Resolution of Agfa 10E56 holographic film

message: Whence did you take the density equation:
D = 1 - (1-k)^l ?
Since l cannot be negative, density is limited to (0,1), which is wrong because it is defined on the interval [0, +\infty).
The linear part of the H&D curve yields:
D = k \log l + a
= \log l^k + a
. This should be the correct model.
Ant 222 (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  The density equation 

message: What's missing here are the graphic films which were used in lithographic layouting. Incidentally, this used to be a huge market.
They had high resolution but only rendered black and white and no grey tones. Maikel (talk) 09:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Lith film