Gigabitfilm homepage parts in englishgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Large format photography : One Thread
After 50 sheets of Gigabitfilm and 8 piece of 35mm films I`m shure he is easier to use then Tech Pan and at least as sharp as the Tpan. For B/W users a must for a testing. See now the dates about the film on the homepage:http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/english/toc.htm
-- Armin Seeholzer (firstname.lastname@example.org), June 30, 2001
Armin, this is a LARGE FORMAT forum. Hardly anyone here gives a rodent's backside for super fine-grain, high-resolution film, either Gigabit or Techpan.
If you could show us some examples of its superb gradation, then we might be interested. So; what's the TONALITY of it like?
-- Pete Andrews (email@example.com), July 02, 2001.
Maybe its not a film for you Pete but for photographer which want work with the sharpest materials to find out where are the weak points of the lenses and the darkroom lenses and equipment and so get also more out of the other films. For me its the film for my architectural work in B/W with very high contrasts and if I want a wow effect from the customer! If you like to see some pictures: www.gigabitfilm.de
But take only your sharpest lenses and don`t take bottles as lenses;-))
-- Armin Seeholzer (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 02, 2001.
Armin, well said. I'm intrested in your question as I live in the UK and any large format film is well overpriced. I find it very sad that some contributers to this site are willing to critisise you because English is not your first language. Pete.
-- Pete Watkins (email@example.com), July 02, 2001.
Where have I criticised Armin personally, or his use of English?
I take exception to that particular accusation, and I'm doubly insulted, since the translation on Gigabit's website is taken almost verbatim from one that I and a German colleague posted on this forum about 6 months ago.
My only 'beef' is with this Gigabit film, and the ridiculous claims made for it; like resolving a ladies watch hand at 100 metres.
It's now well known that this is nothing more than Agfa copying film, souped in a special developer, and as such, I don't believe that it's at all suitable, or reliable, for everyday pictorial use. Armin himself admits that the contrast of the film is on the high side.
The absense of any published independent scans from this film simply reinforces my suspicion about the claims made for it.
All I can say about Gigabit film is, "show me the money".
-- Pete Andrews (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 03, 2001.
First I have to say thad I`m not conected in any way with the german Gigabitfilm company. But mister Andrew, maybe you work for Ilford in UK, could thad be? Just because of your overreaction! But excuse me for my bad school english. Or wat`s your problem with a new high resolution B/W film? If you don`t like it don`take it! Under thad link :http://www.gigabitfilm.de/html/deutsch/ bildbeispiele.htm you find some pictures!
-- Armin Seeholzer (email@example.com), July 03, 2001.
Armin, I have never heard of this film and I have had some very satisfactory results on Tech Pan. I will try to find a supplier of Gigabitfilm in the U.K. Remember that Birmingham is not the interlectural center of the United Kingdom, that is further south.
-- pete Watkins (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 03, 2001.
I tend to stay away from any 'interlectural center' where they can't even spell the phrase.
Armin, I don't work for Ilford, but I am concerned about honesty and integrity. Gigabit haven't shown those qualities in their advertising. They claim it's a new and original film, which it isn't. They also make fantastic claims for its resolution, which they then 'illustrate' with a picture that just isn't technically possible, and they give a confused methodology by which they supposedley obtained their fantastic picture.
The whole setup is misleading, since all they're selling is a developer. If they were upfront about that, then I would leave the subject alo
-- Pete Andrews (email@example.com), July 04, 2001.
Wow, an 021 who can spell (yes, I know that it's 0121 now). See ya, Pete.
-- Pete Watkins (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 04, 2001.