KODAK VERICOLOR II VPL 120 - 220 FILM

<p>Does anyone know where I can find some KODAK VERICOLOR II (VPL) 120 or 220 film? This film was discontinued in the late 1990's and replaced with PRO 100T. I am interested in acquiring some of this film. The condition/expiration date of the film is not an issue - in fact the older the better. </p>

<p>There's some on Ebay right now...</p>

<p>May I ask why you want it? What do you have in mind? Sounds good whatever it is.</p>

<p>Thanks Andrew! It is one of several retired and expired films I like to shoot with. This one is particularly unpredictable, so it's fun to see what *if anything* comes out.</p>

<p>Well Looking in my freezer I have found a roll I will shoot it and see what happens... The roll I found is 220 so thank you.</p>

<p>when I shoot it, I overexpose two or three stops and then process in E6 to get the positive transparency. If I'm lucky, when shot in daylight this tends to bring out a combination of faded yellow-gold highlights, soft purple-lavender shadows and saturated greens in the mid-tones. It is a tungsten light balanced film, and I've never processed c-41, so I can't speak to those results. Have fun!</p>

<p>Does it look like this?</p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2575/3760356353_661335202f.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="494" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3500/3760354703_1af873e00b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="500" /></p>

<p>The pictures posted in this thread would be easy to achieve in Photoshop. Start with the curves function and mismatch the red, green, and blue channels. Then go to the filter menu and add some grain. The attached web cam photo was manipulated with Microsoft Photo Editor which has about 1% of the capability of Photoshop. (I'm away from my good computer.)</p><div></div>

<p>Those pictures were taken on an ISO 400 slide film that was mistakenly shot at EI 100. Yes You can use PS to do a bunch of things But to do it with film is something special.</p>

<p> I Do use PS to adjust my work you have to with scanning... Ron I respect you I have known and seen you here over the years and I know you are just pointing out how things can happen not how they did.</p>

<p>Larry</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The pictures posted in this thread would be easy to achieve in Photoshop.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why must people always make that comment? Of course you can Photoshop it. You can Photoshop anything. What Jason is trying to do is find some Vericolor film.</p>

<p>Andrew,<br>

I understand that a Photoshop recomendation is not always welcome in the film and processing forum. I've long been a proponent of film. I've also been scanning my film images for about 15 years. There is not much I do in Photoshop that couldn't be done with film and chemistry, but Photoshop is about 1000 times faster. Perhaps it is obvious that Jason could use Photoshop rather than relying on a 20 year old film. I wrote it because I wasn't sure it was obvious to Jason.</p>

<p>If you are still looking for some, I have some for sell on ebay right now:</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140485626963&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=140485627258&ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT</p>

<p>( I also have a few more packs as well that I haven't listed yet)</p><div></div>

I just realized that I have some VPL in the fridge, and a Brownie that uses 120 film. If I get in the right mood, I will put the two together.

 

I think the film was kept cold before I bought it a few years ago.

I have to see if I have any of that.

<p>Andrew,<br>

I understand that a Photoshop recomendation is not always welcome in the film and processing forum. I've long been a proponent of film. I've also been scanning my film images for about 15 years. There is not much I do in Photoshop that couldn't be done with film and chemistry, but Photoshop is about 1000 times faster. Perhaps it is obvious that Jason could use Photoshop rather than relying on a 20 year old film. I wrote it because I wasn't sure it was obvious to Jason.</p>

 

Reminds me of what my high school geometry teacher said about our proofs: "Why do it the easy way when there is a hard way?"

 

Nothing against Photoshop suggestions, but for some it is the challenge of doing it with film, or just that sometimes film is more fun.

 

For me, especially doing something unusual, like using VPL in a Brownie, which presumably not so many people have tried.

 

I suppose you can make a digital camera image look like it came from a Brownie, appropriately blurred, and even the color effects of using VPL without a filter.

 

This is from last summer, as above VPL 120 in a Brownie 2F. Even with a type F filter held in front of the lens.

 

The color might be off from 20 year old film, from the wrong filter, or because I didn't get the color

right in the scanning. I previously posted in the No Words forum for lighthouses, but forgot about

this one.

 

By the way, the picture above is VPS, not VPL, but the VPS I know of is Vericolor III, so

presumably somewhat old. I am not sure how old VPL is.

Durh, but Vericolor is a negative film.

Therefore there's really no 'correct' or 'incorrect' colour to be got from it.

If it was darkroom printed, as originally intended, it would only need a filter pack adjustment to get the colour anyhow you wanted it. No need for PhotoShop, and certainly no need to use stale old film to get weird colour.

 

OTOH, a simple green balance and exposure adjustment gets the above example pretty much perfect. About +35M added to the printing pack I estimate. And it's actually much more interesting and challenging, in my opinion, to get good colour than bad.

It was also late afternoon, when sunlight would be different than in the middle of the day.

 

I don't remember now what I did to get the color that I got.

I think I did some with Preview (on OS X), which isn't the best color editing tool.

It was also late afternoon

Late afternoon sun? No problem!

We'll just take some yellow out of the filter pack.

I think that looks more like I might remember, long ago last summer.

Even the rust on the pole on the right looks more rust colored,

and the sky more natural blue.

 

You can see from the shadows under the ring at the top of the tower

that the sun is very low. I figured this would be the last shot of the day.

I think that looks more like I might remember, long ago last summer.

Even the rust on the pole on the right looks more rust colored,

and the sky more natural blue.

 

You can see from the shadows under the ring at the top of the tower

that the sun is very low. I figured this would be the last shot of the day.

 

So it's more important on how you remember the scene. That's why I had to print my own negatives as the labs wouldn't know how I remember it.

I think it's silly to buy film to get unpredictability. I used to buy 20 roll of film at a time. Test a roll and refrigerate the rest so I know exactly what to expect.. Come to think of it anyone who shoot film for the unpredictable results didn't shoot the first picture with film.

Unpredictability ... I think if I want more predictability then I use digital, so one reason

for film is some unpredictability. Would I buy and use new VPL if it was still available?

 

Probably not, though more likely if it was the same price.

I suspected at the time, that I was the first to use VPL in a

Brownie 2F, though maybe others have used it in different Brownie models.

I think that was the reason more than unpredictability.

 

I did use the filter with it to get the color balance closer.

 

I have some older film in sizes that you can't get new film.

 

I did buy some Fukatsu 110 film instead of using old VP, though I do

have some VP110, also.

As I said people who look for unpredictability didn't take their first photo using film. If you started out using film you would hate that aspect of film and find ways to make it predictable.

It does seem contradictory, that (most) film users espouse a love of 'skill' and 'control' that supposedly can only be got from using film. Yet they'll use outdated or badly stored film, cross-processing, 'pushing' C-41 or E6, etc. All of which give results that are, at best sub-standard, and at worst totally unpredictable.

 

Of course they'll claim it's arty; when in fact it's actually a pretty lazy and haphazard way of doing things. Requiring less skill than the use of PhotoShop that they noisily despise.

As long as movie producers keep using film, I won't wonder too much.

 

The 'skill' and 'control' of film is different from digital, so I wouldn't say that one has more or less.

Note especially the smooth ends to the characteristic curves in film, vs. the sharp corners in digital.

 

There are (or were) E6 films designed to be pushed, and maybe also C41.

I mostly think cross processing is weird, but it would be nice to have a C41 film with no mask.

 

I mostly use expired film when it comes in sizes that I can't get in new film, or of a discontinued

film that I like, sometimes but not so much for the price.

 

Well, as long as I remember, I have known about recent outdated film, which one expects to

be still fine, but for a good price. Remember when stores had out a box of such film?

 

But yes, using outdated film for the specific goal of unpredictability does seem

strange to me. But much of the reason I liked photography from the beginning was the

fun of it, including the fun of darkroom work. I was always more interested in the

science of it, and less the art. Unpredictability is for artists.