 |
 | 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 / Film and Labs / November 2004Using Cinema Film, leaving Anti Halation backing
Hi all. I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), and recently started experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my still camera. I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see the effect created. What came out was just mind blowing, the images were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very interesting visual effects. Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random. I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem, and not staying with it. Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison? Thanks, Tal. >Hi all. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Thanks, >Tal. I haven't done any short end developing in years. Does your experience mean that Fuji is now using a RemJet backing, as has Eastman all along? When I last used Fuji, they had an internal AH layer that they claimed was more efficacious than Eastman's RemJet. If they changed, why and what did they say about going to a less effective AH layer? Anyone? Robert Vervoordt, MFA > Hi all. Use conventional film and quite farting around with this sh.t. Cimenmatographers are even stupider than still photographers. Moron. > I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), and recently started > experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Thanks, > Tal. > Hi all. > > I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), Are YOU the one who can't focus? > and recently started > experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my > still camera. Moron. > I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see > the effect created. What came out was just mind blowing, the images > were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very > interesting visual effects. How many drugs are you on, moron? > Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance > of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random. Gee, I wonder how high you'd register on a stupidometer. > I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the > discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem, > and not staying with it. Hey, go shove a diffusion filter up your a.s... > Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to > somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison? www.cinematographersaremorons.com > Thanks, > Tal. Into the killfile, Uranium Committee. > Into the killfile, Uranium Committee. In case you did not recognize that one, it was Michaelangelo Scarpitti . . . a legend in his own mind. Sad that he has absolutely no imagination. I wonder what his next fake posting name will morph into. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com > > Into the killfile, Uranium Committee. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> Gee, I wonder what would happen if I put transmission fluid into my fuel tank. Does anybody here know? All I can find on the internet is how to avoid leaks! f.cking idiot cinematographers. > > > Into the killfile, Uranium Committee. > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > how to avoid leaks! > . . . . . . . . . . I can imagine you doing that. ;-) I would even bet that you drank photo chemicals in the past, just as a curiosity . . . . . . . . . . Try this idea out, to keep the topic on film. There is a current professional fashion photographer doing very interesting colour prints by spilling various types of teas into the chemicals. It seems that they cause some unusual looking, somewhat random stains on the prints. The results I have seen are a unique vision, and probably why that guy suddenly has thousands of dollars of contracts, and clients waiting to use his creative vision. That is what I mean by imagination. The original idea of leaving some staining or contaminating agent on the film places another type of visual element, and some randomness, onto each image. This is not much different than Polaroid manipulations, something I would be surprised if you ever tried out. I have quite a few Polaroid manipulations that have been exhibited, none of which I would call sharp images, but they do generate a great deal of attention, smiles, and interest from viewers. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com > > > > Into the killfile, Uranium Committee. > > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com> Gee, I wonder why Kodak spends untold amounts on optimizing cine films for cine use and still films for still use, and X-ray films for radiographic use, and missile-tracking films for missile-tracking use, and recording film for photographing oscilloscope screens. I wonder why that is. So, people put E-6 films through C-41 and C-41 films through E-6 and they think they are creative geniuses. Or they have their dogs piss on them. Or they place their negatives in a dump site and let rats bite and scratch them at random. How clever these individuals must be! As a matter of fact, I did experiment with some DuPont B&W 35mm MP missile-tracking film in 1969. It turned out to have an unusual characteristic curve which made it useful for a series of photos of old buildings on the university campus. The results were quite interesting, very contrasty and stark, quite different from what I could attain with conventional films. This, however, is a far cry from what this individual is doing. I understood my efforts were entirely experimental, and I did not expect to find that anyone else had done precisely that sort of experiment before. I did not expect someone else to do my experimental work for me. The material in question did not cause any processing problems for any lab, so I inconvenienced no-one. I processed the film myself in conventional type developer. Color negative motion-picture films have their own process (ECN-2?), distinct from C-41 and its clones. These films and processes are designed to have precisely the properties that are needed for motion-picture work and to be compatible with motion-picture lab requirements. Those make it incompatible with the requirements of the still-camera labs. There are numerous still products. Use them. > > > > > Into the killfile, Uranium Committee. > > > > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > I wonder why that is. And Polaroid spent lots of money on developing type 600 instant film, because the chemicals could be squished around on TimeZero films. Surprising that TimeZero (SX70) films are used for creative manipulation. Kodak also have data sheets on their web site that discuss cross processing films, or even push processing. If they never intended people to do that, they would either warn against it, or never publish the information on how to do it. Not everything in life has only one purpose, nor needs to be accomplished in only one way. > So, people put E-6 films through C-41 and C-41 films through E-6 and > they think they are creative geniuses. Just doing that process is not guarantee that the images will be compelling to a viewer, just as using a Leica is no guarantee that you would take any interesting photos. > Or they have their dogs piss on > them. Or they place their negatives in a dump site and let rats bite > and scratch them at random. How clever these individuals must be! If they make money from it, or have magazines, galleries and museums display the results of those things, then I guess they were much more clever than you . . . or maybe I should just state they had more imagination. > As a matter of fact, I did experiment with some DuPont B&W 35mm MP > missile-tracking film in 1969. It turned out to have an unusual > characteristic curve which made it useful for a series of photos of > old buildings on the university campus. The results were quite > interesting, very contrasty and stark, quite different from what I > could attain with conventional films. Okay, so you had a little creative inspiration . . . 35 years ago . . . . . . . So what made you such an un-creative and bitter old man? > This, however, is a far cry from what this individual is doing. I > understood my efforts were entirely experimental, and I did not expect [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > any lab, so I inconvenienced no-one. I processed the film myself in > conventional type developer. It surprises me that you would not think that a lab might do this once, and if it was a problem, they would refuse to do it again. Then the original poster would have no choice other than to do it themselves. If they did it themselves, then they would be responsible for the clean-up. If that became a problem, then I would imagine they would give up on the idea. Experimentation can lead to innovation. It takes a little bit of imagination to drive creativity. > Color negative motion-picture films have their own process (ECN-2?), > distinct from C-41 and its clones. These films and processes are > designed to have precisely the properties that are needed for > motion-picture work and to be compatible with motion-picture lab > requirements. I am well aware of that, since I have worked with motion picture films several times recently. > Those make it incompatible with the requirements of the > still-camera labs. There are numerous still products. So what? I would bet I use substantially more films than you do, especially since all you seem to harp on about are Kodachrome and TriX. In fact, I see you on the Medium Format, and Large Format groups, yet all you ever talk about is your thirty year old Leicaflex SLR, and I wonder if you even use that anymore. I would bet you don't use a medium format, nor a large format, camera at all. You started out on the 35 mm group with some nice postings, and were welcomed by most early on. Now you have changed your handle a couple of times, used lots of profanity, insulted people, and shown a lack of objectivity, all in the space of a few months. I also notice that you have spread to other groups, and shown the same lack of tact, and tried to hide your identity after you pissed off too many people. Why do you even bother posting? Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio <http://www.allgstudio.com (Snipped) First, I changed my name so that I could speak more freely. I have not tried to hide my identity. > > Gee, I wonder why Kodak spends untold amounts on optimizing cine films > > for cine use and still films for still use, and X-ray films for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > publish the information on how to do it. Not everything in life has only one purpose, nor needs to > be accomplished in only one way. Kodak DOES, in fact, advise against cross-processing. "Note: Kodak does not recommend processing color negative films in any process other than the process intended for the specific film type. Processing films in the wrong process invalidates any guarantee of the film's quality." http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis184/cis184.jhtml ?id=0.1.14.34.9.16.46&lc=en http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/cis184/cis184.pdf Kodak points out that differences between E-6 and C41 could cause stability problems for the resulting images. If someone were REALLY smart, he'd use E-6 without the first developer and get negatives that are more stable. > > So, people put E-6 films through C-41 and C-41 films through E-6 and > > they think they are creative geniuses. > > Just doing that process is not guarantee that the images will be compelling to a viewer, just as > using a Leica is no guarantee that you would take any interesting photos. No, it does not, but it does guarantee the best possible images for those who make them. > > Or they have their dogs piss on > > them. Or they place their negatives in a dump site and let rats bite [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > things, then I guess they were much more clever than you . . . or maybe I should just state they > had more imagination. Who cares? > > As a matter of fact, I did experiment with some DuPont B&W 35mm MP > > missile-tracking film in 1969. It turned out to have an unusual [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Okay, so you had a little creative inspiration . . . 35 years ago . . . . . . . So what made you > such an un-creative and bitter old man? Nothing. It's just such a pathetic response. There seems to be a complete lack of creativity or originality. I see this all too frequently. > > This, however, is a far cry from what this individual is doing. I > > understood my efforts were entirely experimental, and I did not expect [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Experimentation can lead to innovation. It takes a little bit of imagination to drive creativity. That's not the point, and you know it. How much effort does it take to notice that Kodak makes different processes for different films that are suited to different purposes? How many color negative films does Kodak make for still cameras? 50? Does this individual honestly believe that there is a need that is not covered by existing C-41 materials? Kodak has for decades make SEPARATE lines of color materials for MP and still work, for a number of sound technical reasons. > > Color negative motion-picture films have their own process (ECN-2?), > > distinct from C-41 and its clones. These films and processes are [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So what? I would bet I use substantially more films than you do, especially since all you seem to > harp on about are Kodachrome and TriX. I use Ilford, Fuji, and Kodak B&W films, Kodachrome, and Fuji negative materials. NPH is rather good, I should point out. > In fact, I see you on the Medium Format, and Large Format > groups, yet all you ever talk about is your thirty year old Leicaflex SLR, and I wonder if you > even use that anymore. Recent work can be seen at: http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/ILFOPRO/MemberGallery.asp?membername=Micha el+Scarpitti I have about 40 rolls to work with from this summer, taken for a special project I'm working on. A few are posted there. > I would bet you don't use a medium format, nor a large format, camera at > all. I used to. Various 4x5's and Hasselblad. > You started out on the 35 mm group with some nice postings, and were welcomed by most early on. > Now you have changed your handle a couple of times, used lots of profanity, insulted people, and > shown a lack of objectivity, all in the space of a few months. Incorrect. The Zonazis came after me when I denounced their lies. > I also notice that you have spread to other groups, and shown the same lack of tact, and tried to > hide your identity after you pissed off too many people. Why do you even bother posting? I don't care what other people think. > Ciao! > > Gordon Moat > A G Studio > <http://www.allgstudio.com > Kodak DOES, in fact, advise against cross-processing. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Processing films in the wrong process invalidates any guarantee of the > film's quality." If you want a guarantee of performance to match the specified intent of the film, then yes, but so what? For the photographer who want unique effects that are outside the spec, he cannot follow the spec. Freedom means doing what the hell you want and getting new results that may be intersting, compelling, even from time to time astounding. You can stay in your straight jacket Mikey, but don't expect others to feel the need to do so nor to listen to your lunatic ravings. If you always do what you always did, you will always get what you always got. Kodak's guarantee applies to getting a Kodak spec'd result. They really don't care if you cross process, they don't have a cross processing police and possibly unofficially they thing it's a great idea as people will need to use more Kodak products to play with these concepts. In closing, Mikey boy, you should refrain from telling people what they shouldn't do. It's 1833 and Michael Scarpetti says, "Hey Joseph Niépce! Stop playing with those chemicals and plates and dark boxes. Get your oil paints out, damnit." Cheers, Alan.  Signature-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource: -- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.-- You miss the point. Photographic film is in an ADVANCED state of development at this point in time. It is a MATURE product category. Films are manufactured by firms that have considerable experience and technical knowledge. Films are made for virtually every conceivable need and niche. There is no rational need for using cine films (most of which are tunsten balanced) INSTEAD of commonplace C41 films to do the jobs that the standard C41 films are designed to do. What this 'cinematographer' want to do is NOT comparable to the early experiments that Niépce was making. He wants to take an advanced product out of its proper environment and mis-use it in an environment for which there are ALREADY other advanced products PERFECTLY suited for that use. This is not an experiment that reflects creativity, but rather laziness and stupidity. ----------------------------- In summation: Most cine films are tunsten balanced because most cine work is done with tunsten lighting. For daylight exposure, an 85 filter is usually used. Most cine films use different color masks that are likely incompatible with C41 masks and thus would make it hard to produce accurate color when printed on conventional papers, even if a #85 color correction filter were used (because the films are tunsten balanced). Most cine films use a different kind of anti-halation layer which cannot be removed in C41 processing. None of these are to be simply dismissed. > > Kodak DOES, in fact, advise against cross-processing. > > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. > > Gee, I wonder why Kodak spends untold amounts on optimizing cine films > > for cine use and still films for still use, and X-ray films for > > radiographic use, and missile-tracking films for missile-tracking use, > > and recording film for photographing oscilloscope screens. As obnoxious as his expression was, he did make sense. This stuff is not optimized for still camera use. For one thing, cine film is optimized for one shutter speed, because movie cameras shoot all frames at the same speed. As a former user of Eastmancolor 5254 and 5247, I can personally attest to the fact that these cine emulsions are inappropriate for still use. Their only selling point was economy, and there are better choices out there if one wants cheap film. Even outdated "normal" stuff will perform better. > Hi all. > > I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), and recently started > experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my > still camera. Stop doing that, moron. > I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see > the effect created. What would be the effect of putting Plutonium in your food? > What came out was just mind blowing, the images > were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very > interesting visual effects. Just like hydrogen bombs. > Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance > of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random. So, there are 'degrees' of randomness? How uneducated you are about math, sonny. > I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the > discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem, > and not staying with it. So, you don't have a clue WHY that is? > Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to > somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison? What would happen if I put salt in your gas tank? If I put sand in your transmission? If I used your cimena lens to polish my bumpers? Moron. > Thanks, > Tal. |
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
|
©2008 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.