jason_fitzmaurice

I made the decision today to start learning how to home process.

I decided to try two pro labs with the same film.

I took each place a roll of Ektachrome 1600 slide film.

Both were EI 800 which is a one stop push. In both cases I told the lab my EI, and asked specifically for a one stop push. I also marked the film cans with an X in the spot where it says (800 P1)

At one lab the film was great, at the other they ignored my instructions and PULLED one stop. Then a gentleman there got into an argument with me claiming the film is naturally 1600 so 800 required a pull. You can see images on the film BARELY if you look really hard. Nevertheless he would not admit the mistake was his, and made me pay him for the processing. I wouldn't have except he also had a roll of Color print film I was testing the lab with.

If a pro lab can make this kind of mistake, I give up. I will begin saving for the equipment to do it myself.

Eric,

Sometimes there is enough light. Example I am artistic director for a film production company. I recently directed a version of Macbeth (it's being edited now) and there was plenty of light. In fact there was enough light to shoot ISO 100 (we shot BW stills as it was a BW movie). Of course that was because I am a big fan of depth of field and lit for f16. :)

Still since he has now told us how they are lighting, I would withdraw my recomendation. I still feel as a director, that whenever possible it is best to try and pick a film for stills, that closely matches the look of the motion picture filmstock.

I was once on a set where the short film was being shot on Kodachrome 8mm (it was a low budget experimental thing) the still photographer was using portra uc. The howls that came from the director when he realized the stills had nothing like the colors of his film.

ADAM

You say the lesn for he MP camera will be set at 2.8. Good info to have, but also what film are they using. Obviously if they are lighting for 400ISO film to get a grainy look you have a lot more flexability than if they are shooting 50 or 100.

IF there is enough light, Don't neglect the possability of shooting daylight balanced film, but filtering it.

My advice(as a filmmaker and amateur photographer) would be to chose the film with the palette closest to the motion picture filmstock they are using.

I would look into buying some color temperature blue gels. Cut these to the size needed, and secure in front of your lights.

This is often done on film sets, or to match indoor hot lights to window lights. I've always found it to work well shooting transparencies indoors. It has, whenever possible, been what I prefer to using a filter on the camera.

Hans.

I will admit to the misunderstanding of standard.

I took the word in a differnt sense than the one you meant it in.

Of course, I understand about the orange mask, but other people have sucessfully cross processed, so it isn't as if it cannot be done. It's just an effect you don't care for.

Hans,

It is clear. I just don't think it is acurate.

As for your points:

1. Is simply not true. Well It maybe true that I would never have thought of it on my own, but that does not mean I am lazy or a follower of fashion. I am curious. I've scene Cross processing used, but seing the result without knowing how the image looked to begin with (having never seen the set/models) how can I know how the result was reached, or even if I would find the results pleasing enough to use, or what I could do with the technique. The fact that I have scene a technique I would like todevleoping my skills in compo try has nothing to do with laziness. I may like it, I may not, but I won't know if I don't try, so to not try it would be lazy.

2. I never claimed ,or would claim, cross processing was a replacemenmt for developing my compositional skills, or for capturing the decisive moment. I do want to try it, just to know wheter I like it or not. If I do like it, it is no different from using different films, or different equipment, gaining understanding of a technique is never wasted.

3. Painters carefully developed paints to match the tones they wanted, and those Pre-Raphaelite's just put them on top of wqhite paint, a way thery were never meant to be used. See what I mean figuring out a way to use something that the inventer never intended seems creative to me, Oh and if they turn your stomach.. just don't look at them. I don't like the look of some filmstocks, but I would never tell someone they shouldn't use them, if they find them pleasing.

4. Is ludicrous, a lot of things happened by accident. The vulcanization of rubber for instance. If it as anrtistic technique I decide I like, great, if not no harm done. As for not being a standard technique doesn't that contradict your saying it is overused and the fashion. If it's used regularly it's a standard technique. And wheter or not it is, is irrelevant. Their is no virtue to avoiding something just because others do it, nor is their virtue in doing something jusat because others do. The only way to knwo is to try it. I can't know if corss processing would suit MY images without trying it.

IT seems to me you are treating your opinions on the style, as fact. They are opinions. Perfectly valid opinions, and I may find I agree, or disagree after trying it myself, but they are not facts.

Hans

You are right I read about it.. and that means?

So I suppose we should never take advantage of somthing if it's been done before.

So no one should perform Shakespeare. I mean I wouldn't have thought of writing Hamlet, it's been staged before, so I should asume I couldn't find an interesting spin on it, and should not do it.

I guess if I were a painter, and decided to try the Pre-Raphealit aproach of painting white on the canvass, and then painting over that while it was still wet, my paintings couldn't be art because I'd have read about the aproach in a book.

Personally I intend to take advantage of what has been done before, trying it, learning from it, and seeing if it is a process I want to use with my own composition, lightinig, subject choice, or not.

I mean should I never try a filmstock because I've seen it used, and feel I might be able to use it creatively as well?

Okay sorry to touch all this off. I"ve just never Cross Processed before, had some slide film just past experation date, which an article mentioned was the best time to use it for x processing. I just thought it might be interesting to try it and see what happened. Didn't mean to get a debate going on the merits of doing it... although having started one accidently I might as well put in my two cents on the is it art argument.

Of Course it can be. The fact that some people find it speaks to them and affects them as art makes it art. Now it can be good or bad art, but art it is.

Just as when (as has often happened) I've been involve din a play that is badly reviewed. The crititc may dislike anya spect of it, might consider it a failure, but I've never seen one say that just because they didn't like it it wasn't art. Seems like ther same rules should aplly to any artform.

Okay,

So I decided to try cross processing and see what all the fuss was

about. Problem is here in Dallas, I can't find anyone who will do it.

Camera Stores, One Hour Labs, BWC, etc. No one is willing to process

it for me. Does anyone know of a local lab that will do it?

Thanks

Thanks for the advice folks.

I shot the first roll of k200, took two shots of everything both with and without filter. I'll send it to Happy D tomorrow, and I shall see.

I figure with 20 more rolls of this it's worth processing one and seeing if I should shoot the rest.

Thanks Again

I was recently given a large number of roles of expired Kodachrome 200

and Kodachrome 64. The films range from 15 to 17 months out of date.

This film was NOT refrigerated or frozen, but stored at room

temperature (70f or so).

Since it was free I'm going to shoot it but had two questions.

1. How bad is each type likely to be?

2. I was advised by this friend to shoot the expired 200 through an

80b in sunlight to correct for the color cast of adged Kodachrome 200.

This sounds a little odd to me is it true?

Thanks a lot

JMF