 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Darkroom / April 200626yr old Ektachrome, D76,Dektol mix, IT ACTUALLY WORKED ! Now What ?
I am new to photography, well not photography but certainly developing and printing my own film. This all started about 2 months ago because of my sons interest in B&W Motion pictures, I bought im a Bolex 8 all the lenses etc, I also picked up some other nice camera's an Ala, and a Rolei, as well as many random camera's in 1 package deal. One of the random camera's was a Minolta 400 Super 8, he and I had no interest, in it because of the film cost/availablity (about 15 vs 8$ for a reel) But it had a roll of Exachrome 160 that expired in 1980 with it. Sunday I was developing a couple of rolls of 120 I had just shot with my new (to me) Mamyia C3, I had a tank of D76 left over that was used enough I was debating putting back with the rest as well as a tray of Dektol, SO I said hey Ive read some people get an image with d76 on Ekta, he said no way isnt the color different, I said yes but hey what do we have to loose. So we shot it and hammered the cartridge apart in our makeshift darkroom. Took the whole spagetti mess and shoved it into the tank of D76, but I was left with some room so I dumped in the Dektol, put the lid on and darn near shook it for about 7 minutes (give or take 2 :) Washed it, and pured in some fixer, 10 minutes later.......... I have an IMAGE, not only an Image a DECENT Image, but in negative of course, I didnt think it would work at ALL let alone as well as it did, but now I've got a negative not a reversal. I've got to say 26 year old film in a HOT attic, with D76 and Dektol, this is crazy isnt it ? The cool part it as I dragged it into the driveway sun to dry, it got covered in some cat hait, had some of the emulsion scratched off on the threshold, and look genuinley VERY Cool when viewed. VERY Cool, you would swear other than the computers (from in house shots) and the 2006 cars in the driveway it was shot in the 20's NOW How can I get this to a positive ? Is there a way to do it digitally ? Thanks Chris The Guy who has no Idea what hes doing but is having fun doing it. cwertman@yahoo.com spake thus: [hair-raising tale snipped] > NOW How can I get this to a positive ? > > Is there a way to do it digitally ? Yep; it's called a "film scanner". AKA cheap garden-variety consumer desktop scanner with a transparency attachment. Will do anywhere from a faily shitty job to fairly decent, though I wouldn't expect much from miniature (i.e., 35mm) negs. Of course, you can pay more bux to have a pwofessional do it. Or you could find someone with, say, a, whatchamacallit? oh, yeah, a DARKROOM.  SignatureSave the Planet Kill Yourself - motto of the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/) Video not really my thing (though I did some video transfer one place I worked) but if you projected the S8 negative and refilmed it with a digital movie camera you might have a shot at reversing it with a film editing program (Adobe Premiere?). And it you found the right film lab, they could do it for you optically (provided you're ready for a second mortgage). Keep us in the loop (pun intended) but you may want to post this on a different forum. Signaturedarkroommike > I am new to photography, well not photography but certainly developing > and printing my own film. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > The Guy who has no Idea what hes doing but is having fun doing it. >I am new to photography, well not photography but certainly developing > and printing my own film. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > I've got to say 26 year old film in a HOT attic, with D76 and Dektol, > this is crazy isnt it ? Actually, it's not all that crazy. The developer affects only those areas of the film that were exposed to light. When you "correctly" develope reversal film, you develope a negative image, then chemically remove that image. The remaining areas of the film, heretofore unaffected, are chemically "exposed" and developed into a positive image. What you did was the first part: developing the negative image. As for the D-76/Dektol mix, you probably got a fairly high contrast developer. Since you were dealing with old film, badly stored, that was a good thing. (Are you re-using your developer? Personnally, I like the dilute,-use-once,-throw-away method) Next step now is to print each frame of the film, put the prints together in a stack and flip thru them fast (16/second), and it will look just like a movie! SignatureKen Hart kwhart@aec.nu "As for the D-76/Dektol mix, you probably got a fairly high contrast > developer. Since you were dealing with old film, badly stored, that was a > good thing. " ....thanks that was kinda why I added the Dektol I had in the tray, as I've heard you can do some high contrast film with it if used at the right dilution, this film was so old I thought it might help. who knows if it did.... I've got a Regular 8 and a 16mm Projector (well my son does) I am trying to look "printing" the negative to other film as a positive, Either 8 or 16, anyone know how to do this ? Lay one on top ot the other and expose ? Thats really what Im lookign for is a way to transfer the negative image to other moview film (Shoulda said that) The crazy part was the age and storage conditions of the fiml but youre right the D76/Dektol mix probably helped big time. I didnt want to try reversal on the film I had, (1 I wasnt sure if color reversal bleach is the same) and 2 I was so stunned I got an image I fixed it, with the emlusion flaky and being developed with B7W developer I also wasnt sure if reversing it would strip all the emulsion off.So I fixed it. (Are you re-using your developer? Personnally, I like the > dilute,-use-once,-throw-away method) I use it for the day then it goes byebye at $4.50 a gallon its not worth screwing up one roll of film, although now I will probably keep the leftovers for just such experiments. Interestingly I tried this on 2 rolls, 1 I shot (that came out good) and 1 that was in the camera and shot, the one that was in the camera managed to give me flaky green stuff (looked like algae) in the fixer and no image. Thanks Chris > >I am new to photography, well not photography but certainly developing > > and printing my own film. [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > a stack and flip thru them fast (16/second), and it will look just like a > movie! What you propose doing is called printing (just like still images). The trick for you will be exposure control. There are places that will do this for you. Another approach is digital, I ran across a program that will take scanned images from movies and convert them to an .avi file (which I think is pretty darn slick): http://www.winsite.com/bin/info?5000000037658 (FYI here be popups to navigate around but the info is solid.) Way back when there were places that sold lots of 8mm/super8/16mm and even sold cheap cineprinters (at least I think that's what they were called) there are probably even plans for DIY units (I have seen plans for a DIY cineprocessor). This is a more generic link to something called the 8mm metasite: http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/# which bills itself as a jumping off place for small format filmmakers. Lots of annoying popups but its a free site. BTW I found several sources for Kodak Plus-X and Tri-X Super* reversal films that a guy could process at home to a positive and not have to work so hard. http://lavender.fortunecity.com/lavender/569/opticalduplication.html a short article on optical duplication And you can also try our sister groups: rec.arts.movies.tech and alt.movies.cinematography.super8 Signaturedarkroommike > "As for the D-76/Dektol mix, you probably got a fairly high contrast > > developer. Since you were dealing with old film, badly stored, that was a > > good thing. " ....thanks that was kinda why I added the Dektol I had in the tray, as I've heard you can do some high contrast film with it if used at the right dilution, this film was so old I thought it might help. who knows if it did.... > I've got a Regular 8 and a 16mm Projector (well my son does) I am > trying to look "printing" the negative to other film as a positive, [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > a stack and flip thru them fast (16/second), and it will look just like a > > movie! EXACTLY What I was looking for thanks !!!!!! >the film that were exposed to light. When you "correctly" develope reversal >film, you develope a negative image, then chemically remove that image. The Sorta. In the interest of true accuracy, to process color reversal film, you chemically expose the latent photograpic negative image with a developer that does not activate the dye couplers. The silver grains are then not available for further exposure. You then chemically expose the remaining halides to completion, and use a color developer on THAT latent postive image. You then have a color positive and all of the halides on the film have been converted to silver. Then, you bleach the silver back to silver salts, and use a fixer to remove all of those, leaving behind only the dyes. Stabilize the dyes, and you're done. A six-bath process breaks this down into discreet steps (with a pre-bleach between the color developer and the bleach). A three-bath process combines the reversal and color developer steps into the second bath, and the bleach & fixer into a blix, omitting a separate pre-bleach. SignatureRob on the Web - Trouble In Paradise http://rob.rnovak.net While chemical flash is currently the re-exposure method of choice a blast of white light will also do the trick. The old Unicolor E-4 kits had you hold the wet reels of wet film up close to a photoflood lamp for re-exposure and the old Morse G-3 wind/rewind tanks had a window in the side for the same purpose with movie films (I saw one of these at the last swap meet I attended--now I wish I'd plunked down the $10 bucks he was asking!). It's cheaper and some of the foggants used for re-exposure are not very safe chemicals but then holding wet reels of film up to a photoflood lamp that might explode if splashed with water sucks, too. Signaturedarkroommike > > >the film that were exposed to light. When you "correctly" develope reversal [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > second bath, and the bleach & fixer into a blix, omitting a separate > pre-bleach. a floodlamp will not explode. rather crack. You will not get shattered glass flying. In old days we processed films with reexposure without any accident. You can use ANY light source, daylight (Sun) is as good. #While chemical flash is currently the re-exposure method of choice a blast #of white light will also do the trick. The old Unicolor E-4 kits had you #hold the wet reels of wet film up close to a photoflood lamp for re-exposure #and the old Morse G-3 wind/rewind tanks had a window in the side for the #same purpose with movie films (I saw one of these at the last swap meet I #attended--now I wish I'd plunked down the $10 bucks he was asking!). # #It's cheaper and some of the foggants used for re-exposure are not very safe #chemicals but then holding wet reels of film up to a photoflood lamp that #might explode if splashed with water sucks, too. Road apples! Why take chances? Have you tried this and can personally attest that splashing a hot floodlamp with water will not explode and send shards of hot flying glass into the face and eyes of someone that does this after your pooh pooh or is this just an OPINION? Just because something did not happen to you (maybe you are especially careful or especially lucky?) does not mean it cannot happen. I processed with these kits for a year before transitioning to E-6 and the warning was plain in black and white on every package of Unicolor Chemistry that I purchased so why even write such a thing (unless you have a good lawyer). And to quote the Great Yellow Father: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/ae31.pdf Warning! A lighted photolamp becomes quite hot and will shatter if you allow any liquid to splash on its surface. Place sheets of glass where they will protect the lamp from spattering or splashing of the solutions or the wash water. I'll bet Kodak gave it a lot of thought before penning those words of wisdom. Lawyer weenie's rule. And how about a quote from a bulb vendor: http://specialtybulb.thomasnet.com/item/bulb-styles/photoflood/30124?&plpver=100 1&origin=keyword&filter=&by=prod&assetid=spec Turn power off before inspection, installation or removal Keep combustible material away from lamp Use in enclosed fixtures rated for this product Do not exceed 110% of rated voltage Avoid direct water/liquid contact And from a GE catalog: http://www.gelighting.com/na/business_lighting/education_resources/literature_li brary/catalogs/lamp_catalog/downloads/cat_projection.pdf "Avoid direct water/liquid contact" Or Osram's catalog: http://www.topbulb.com/find/Catalogs/OS_Photo-Optic.pdf page 55: To avoid shattering of glass parts and/or lens reflector, keep water, other liquids and metal objects from contacting hot glass surfaces. Protect the entire lamp from moisture (rain, snow, etc.) to avoid cracking or breaking. Hell I was taught that you didn't even switch on a flood in the studio without shielding your model with your torso or turning the lamp away from a model before switching the lamp on. In the darkroom the technician will be a lot more "up close and personal" than in the studio, so why take chances? There's also a small but real chance of electroshock if the glass would "just crack". In my own case (when younger anyway) my reflexes would make me jump 6 feet straight up, a problem in a darkroom with a low ceiling. And knocking the lamp socket into the sink, etc. Signaturedarkroommike > a floodlamp will not explode. rather crack. You will not get shattered > glass flying. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that > #might explode if splashed with water sucks, too. two things- 1. depending on quantity of water and type of glass, crack will or will not happened. 2. If it cracks it will FALL down, not fly to your eyes. Why would it? What force would do it? Is a lamp pressurised? Lamps are usually filled with nitrogen or argon, or empty )vaccuum). I've done thousands rev processing using either an ambient light or floodlight. Over 50 years I had not one accident and I am not aware of any. Unless you some really stupid things. But it is not covered by a standard procedure. That wasn't my point. If you say it can't happen and through some unbelievable combination of stupidity and bad luck it comes to pass then who is responsible? (Or at least who should feel morally responsible?) And if Mr. Bad Luck used a halogen lamp instead of a photoflood? Sheesh. GE, Kodak and OSRAM are all on my side on this one, I wager the Kodak labs have processed a wee bit more film than you and I together and that lamp makers know their product better than you or I. And I doubt that you've processed film under every possible scenario or set of conditions. Even you say the glass will just fall if the lamp cracks and I'm holding the film UP to the lamp where is the glass going? Down towards me? (Actually I know better but some newbie might not.) Signaturedarkroommike > two things- > 1. depending on quantity of water and type of glass, crack will or [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Unless you some really stupid things. > But it is not covered by a standard procedure. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.