karl_fermedfor

<p>Helen: Looks like this was written a while ago, but here are some comparisons of the intermediate films currently available versus negative stocks:<br /><br />Fuji FN 8511 Intermediate film (these are what I've measured accurate to +/- 0.025 ALL OF THESE ARE STATUS M)<br>

B+F Red 0.275 Green 0.600 Blue 0.825 <br>

LAD (Laboratory AIM density) Red 1.10 Green 1.50 Blue 1.75 </p>

<p>Kodak 5254 Intermediate Film (has an odd orange base cast, and has very low Red (Cyan values)) <br>

B+F Red 0.075 Green 0.65 Blue 0.70<br>

LAD Red 0.75 Green 1.325 Blue 1.425<br>

For comparison, here are the actual Kodak values:<br>

5201 Status M<br>

D-Min Red 0.17 Green 0.60 Blue 0.87<br>

AIM Red 0.83 Green 1.35 Blue 1.71<br /><br /><br>

5219 Status M<br>

D-Min Red 0.20 Green 0.65 Blue 0.87<br>

AIM Red 0.78 Green 1.27 Blue 1.51<br /><br /><br /><br />As far as making prints, Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory makes prints (color positives) onto Fuji 3514DI and Kodak Vision 2383. DoubleExposureLtd@gmail.com<br /><br /><br />Not sure why anyone would want to use intermediate film as print stock. As you can see by the numbers (and them being Status M) it's basically like an internegative film or an intermediate film, it's almost as low-contrast as negative, (though 5254 has a really funny coloration, not sure why might be for digital intermediate usage).<br /><br />They'd be good for making internegatives or interpositives, but NOT for making prints. </p>

<p>Hey guys, this thread is old, and so is this film: I wouldn't recommend ANYONE take fiml to CVS or Walgreen these days!<br /><br />Do you know how out of control that chemistry has gotten? They're all about to pull out the machines and scrap them (and C-41) completely!<br /><br /><br />Anyway, Double Exposure Ltd., Lab, a lab my friend has sent his ECN-2 film to, works with this film and C-41, SFW, SFW-XL Signature color etc. film<br /><br />Here's their contact info: DoubleExposureLtd@gmail.com<br />(440)238-1148 Telephone (United States)<br />http://www.fb.me/xxltdlab<br /><br /><br />They tried to post information on here that was deleted as "spam," so this is supposed to be better? Some of this info is 10 years old, and it's all speculation.<br /><br /><br /><br />If any of you have ever held onto film for 10+ years, you want a professional lab to deal with it! CVS they'd probably think the film was blank if it were old. They have a bunch of scanners, computers that do the work (badly!) for them.<br /><br />I've run into maybe two people at minilabs EVER that did a good job and here you guys go recommedning them? <br /><br /><br />Even in 2001, telling someone to take their film to a 1-Hour Photo was a bad idea! Scratches, dirt dust, I even saw a roll of film my sister took them get processed, looks like with the machine open or the changing bag open.<br /><br />It was from a disposable camera and they fogged the whole thing! Do you really want a 16-y.o. kid who read probably an online PDF trying to process film who doesn't even know what film is?<br /><br /><br /><br />I think it's a better idea to send it to a lab that specializes in doing it than taking another chance that some minilab clerk even knows how to load the machine right! </p>

DALE Labs stopped processing the old SFW-XL films. They only do C-41 now<p>I'd just like to contribute:<p>My friend sent some film that was " SFW-XL / ECN-2 " to a lab in Northeast Ohio DOUBLE EXPOSURE, LTD. LAB that claims to be the only one doing full-service processing, and they made the slides from negatives. They offer fresh film and can do it from regular C-41 film too.

<p>Unfortunately, it's usually only 2,000 err 2048 lines across, hence "2K" This comes out to an abyssmal 3MP per frame, which is then contact-printed on film for two or three more generations.</p>

<p>By the time a modern movie gets to the theatres, it has a lower resolution than you get on 1080p HDTV. Kind of bass-ackwards, if you ask me, since motion picture prints struck on film cost more than a grand a piece, U.S. dollars.<br>

4K (4096 lines across 12MP per frame, duped three times, so probably half that in the theatres) was actually more in vogue in 2006 than it is now. I would say, in some ways, it can be better than traditional contact printing. But I like the colors on contact prints, the dynamic range.</p>

<p>To summarize, no film is scanned at a low resultion, usually with a telecine rather than a higher-quality single frame scanner. Because they can get away with it and simultaneously produce an HD master that no one can appreciate anyway (anyone that stretches out television or watches standard definition on a 60" diagonal monitor automatically falls into this category), it's become the de-facto route. <br>

Maybe some of them like it more because of easy fixes for problems that are just-as-easily avoidable if you pay attention in the first place.</p>

<p>Most movies ARE shot on film. They are finished from a digital master. . . from the film.</p>

<p>Sorry if I wasn't clear in the earlier post.<br>

And, NO, digital cinema is probably less than 20% still. Most theatres only have 3D screens in digital. I did see an "all digital" AMC in New York this summer, though.</p>

<p>Well, unless they call back AMC, Cinemark, and Regal's loan, they are going to be all-digital in three years, which means the "half-way" point is less than three years hence. Print stock used to be 2/3 of motion picture film sales. Motion picture negative was another third. . . Less than 40% of dramatic television is still film. It was over 70% in the U.S. just five years ago.</p>

<p>Now with the 3D bubble, movies, at least temporarily, will flock towards digital cameras as opposed to shooting with two film cameras or "fake 3Ding" single camera 35. Unless someone can get movies to use dual 2-perf. cameras (still more expensive than single-camera shooting 3-perf., far more expensive than digital), action movies are going to move increasingly digital until 3D dies out</p>

<p>I highly doubt those three theatre chains are any less than 70% of the market for 35mm prints. I don't know the relation between the volume of print film Kodak and Fuji sell in the United States to the rest of the world, but I'm sure we're a large chunk. And Europe has jumped into digital projection much faster. . .</p>

<p>Nope, "The American" was shot on 35mm cameras too :-p<br>

35mm 3-perf., 500T & 250D Kodak Vision3 film.</p>

<p>I actually agree (though I haven't seen it in theatres) that it does have a digital look. It's a lot harder to tell now that most movies are finished digitally. "Inception" is the *ONLY* movie I know of in all of 2010 that wasn't generated from a digital master. All the photos on the IMDB page look very digital, though that could be because they aren't frame grabs, but from a DSLR.<br>

A lot of times, though, when you see film advertisements in films (The Kodak Film race car in "Talladega Nights") or disposable cameras, or film cameras, or darkrooms, it's a tongue-in-cheek reference to what they're shooting the movie with. There was another film from 2010 that featured a big illuminated Kodak sign/logo in a nighttime aerial overhead shot.<br>

The remake of "The Omen" had a photographer shooting film but scanning it, as not all films were finished digitally and they were showing it off that way.</p>

<p>Of course, for background press cameras in movies, they're often just old film bodies that aren't meant to be looked at closely. They even resort to the lame technique of just setting the flashes off manually if you look closely.</p>

<p>I disagree. Use the starter. It will last you nigh near forever. WithOUT it, how are you supposed to replenish the solution? You can't. . . You'd need to have hyper-concentrated replenisher if you're using straight replenisher as a "working solution." I hope you aren't just dumping it all down the drain and using one-shot, because that is a huge waste of your money!</p>

<p>Victor: Do yourself a favor and don't go through middlemen.<br /><br />Kodak, FujiHunt, at least in the U.S., have distributors in Rochester and North Carolina that get the shipments straight from the factory.<br>

<br /><br />They will usually be the cheapest, but they price according to your volume. If you can buy at least a couple hundred dollars at at time, or your currency's equivalent, they will usually give you a better price.<br>

Hope this helps.</p>

<p>Of course, if you are a really big player, you can buy straight from the source. This entails order volumes of at least a thousand dollars at a time, usually.</p>

<p>In order to properly develop, you need to get a grey card on a properly-calibrated camera to appear as the same shade of grey on the negative. I forget what it is on a densitometer. 0.80 maybe?<br>

<br /><br />Find and learn to use a densitometer. They can be your best friend in the darkroom.</p>

<p>Simple way:<br /><br /><br /> Shoot a Max Black frame (overexposed all the way)<br /> a couple of blanks (in case you get bleed into the first from the black frame) D-min<br /> an 18% grey chart, making sure you have properly metered, and maybe a blue patch (which will show up as yellow on the film) to make sure that there isn't retained silver</p>

<p>Shoot on Kodak Gold 400 if you shoot Kodak film and maybe someone else on here can tell you what flim Fuji uses for their controls strips. Get as fresh of film as possible from a reliable source.<br /> <br />OTOH, I don't have the density numbers that each should read, but LD is your stain. the grey patch is your speed. If it isn't grey they are under- or overreplenishing. The black tests for developer exhaustion.<br /> <br />Black patch minus grey patch is your contrast. This also indicates developer activity.</p>

<p>Common problems these days are the idiots let the chemicals sit three or four days without any throughput, exhausting them, and then run their film through.</p>

<p>You CANNOT visually eyeball this with any reliability, you need a densitometer. Although, if you have a control strip master you can get a hold of, an improperly processed strip these days usually has an odd reddish color, too much stain, in the unexposed areas, weak blacks compared to the strip, and muddy yellows sometimes from retained silver.<br /> <br /><br />Retained silver will make a scanner go crazy, which will foul up about 95% of minilabs these days.<br /> <br />Sorry, don't have the factors on me, but you also want to make sure when you are reading these patches with a densitometer (a good pro lab will let you use theirs) that each of the red, green, and blue readings is within .05 (.30 is an F-stop of color) of all the other colors, or .07 at the most. Any more than that and you are going to get color crossover (color casts in the shadows with properly-corrected highlights.</p>

<p>Hope this helps. I tend to always shoot, a black, couple of clear, grey, and blue (yellow) patches on the first roll of any batch I submit for processing just in case a lab wants to BS me and tell me I made an exposure error.<br /> <br />You can't argue with patches, unless of course your metering is messed up. But even here, only the yellow and grey patches will be off. Just the black and clear patches then will still give you enough information to determine if the lab tech is using old chemicals.</p>

<p>Oh, and if you tell the lab "Your chemicals are shot," and they say something brilliant like "The machine replaces those automatically, sir," run away and never go back. Or you can ask to see control strips, or ask how many points they are running within (.10, 1/3 of a stop of color/density) is the acceptable deviance either way.<br>

<br />The ONLY factor that a pro lab will let deviate over .10 and still process is maybe stain, and they will usually try to have too much activity rather than too little.</p>

<p>So you're saying, Josh, that this person would tell you if Plus-X were discontinued but you couldn't make it public if that were the case?<br /><br />So, how again, are we to believe that it hasn't been discontinued?<br /><br /><br />Whatever is said about these two films being different products, I have it on good authority that it's the same film and they just rate it at different speeds.<br>

<br />The reversal product is probably completely different, just as aerial films with the same names are unrelated.</p>

<p>But, just as 5285 is the same as E100G, I have it on good authority from my own "inside source" that these two products are identical.</p>

<p>I think the still supply is going to last a good while longer, and they don't want to spook customers into changing products until it is exhausted. This may be "speculation" on my part to some extent but it follows the classic Kodak pattern. . .</p>

 

<p>So, they are still making P3200 and I stand corrected in that regard.</p>

<p>But the Kodak rep dodged the Plus-X question. He didn't say any more of *that* would be coated at the end of the month.</p>

<p><br />When Kodak "discontinues" a product, that is when they are almost *out* of the product. They know well in advance when they are making their last coating of something. . .</p>

<p>The lady did you a favor: Get film professionally processed if you want professionally-acceptable results.</p>

<p>There are exceptions to the rule, but most minilab techs aren't like Cy the photo guy, they're fucktards. . .</p>

<p>I have it on good authority that both films are cut from the same master rolls, so this isn't a "rumor."<br /><br /><br />Plus-X cine film is just rated lo9wer (or used to be) than the still product.</p>

<p>I know sales are low, but what the hell is everyone supposed to shoot, Tri-X everywhere?<br /><br /><br />I thinkk i8t is better to teach stduents on Plux- and Tri-X than the T-Max films because the old-emulsion films are less susceptible to highlight blockup. </p>

<p>Kodak discontinued the motion-picture version (which, off the record, is cut from the same master roll, just rated at a different speed) just recently.</p>

<p>I have it on good authority that Kodak is using up P3200 too, and will eventually axe that.<br>

So it is only a matter of time before we only have Tri-X 400 (5063), T-Max-2 400 (5095) and T-Max-1 100 (5094).</p>

<p>Some of this is probably due to Fuji's discontinuances. Kodak is now free to follow suit siting the "market" (Fuji).<br>

<br />Kodak will probably have another line of discontinuances in the near future, allowing Fuji to downsize too and follow suit, under the oligopoly (shared monopoly) market structure the film industry is now in.</p>

<p>Unfortunate. Unfortunate for B&W photo students and aspiring amateurs, fine-art photographers and the people that have been steadfastly loyal to film despite its ever-decreasing market share.</p>

<p>The paper at the end of the roll is what I am talking about so I can identify which roll(s) need to be pushed by describing the type of film and the color of the backing paper</p>

<p>(One, older roll of Portra 400NC (the first improvement) doesn't need a push. The second, newer roll MAY need one.)</p>

<p>Anyway, when I told the guy what color the paper was, he said "No, all Kodak is gold colored you must be thinking of Fuji." <br /> <br /> So I want to shoot him a picture so he will see what I am talking about. . .</p>

<p>I've already checked online and there are only photos of unoped or unshot 1- and 220 film available there.</p>

<p>I don't have a digital camera to do this myself, but does anyone have photos or links to photos of what the backing papers of the current Portra III, Portra II, Fuji Pro 1- and 220 films look like?</p>

<p>The guy at the lab was insistant that Kodak film is yellow (even though that it is not unless it is unexposed). I submitted a bag of four rolls, and one or two need a push and I couldn't describe to him in a conversation with him believing me what the colors were :-/</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Please don't take this as my being rude, Ron, but can you actually prove, with a densitometer or some test that Kodak, Fuji pro or amateur 800s out-perform Fuji Press/Superia 1600?</p>

<p>I wish I could get Natura. Isn't it much improved over Superia but only sold in Japan?</p>

<p>I saw a test from a few years back, done in Russia, and admittedly full of typos (might have mixed up GOST and ISO speeds too), and 1600 clearly had a better speed than 800.<br>

Interestingly enough, none of the 800s or 1600s were at their true box speed. IIRC, 1600 was a true 640 or so, and the 800s were only 4- or 500s.<br>

400s were mostly 320, contradicting Kodak's boasts about Portra 400 (although I still love the stuff.)</p>

<p>If you use a flash, you have to get it up over the glass.<br>

<br />I'll take ASA 400 with a flash over 3200 without any day. Just don't do anything stupid to distract players/goalies like putting it directly behind a goal, like taking a shot with a flash during a fould shot.<br>

Not a fan- or player-friendly option. </p>

<p>Only John got it: I shot film for this even, making things like expodisk outside of my use.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick response, John!<br /><br /><br />In terms of a correction factor, though assuming no filter and worst possible lighting scenario (mercury vapor) with a mid 2000s film camera light meter, what sort of correction factor would I need to have none of the curves be severely underexposed due to color correction?<br /><br />Want to minimize noise, metered a grey card on the rink and afterwards in daylight for reference, but want to get the processing right.</p>

<p>Let's assume I shot the "other white meat" to digital, and had a natural daylight balance built in.<br>

<br />Without having filters around, or the speed to spare, what would I need to overexpose to get adequate, not excessively noisy, color information in all three of the curves?</p>

<p>SOT, analog gain is undestructive. IDK if your scanner supports it, but the best way to avoid noise in the scan is to get the proper level of scan "exposure" to start.<br>

Think of it like timing an optical print on an enlarger (B&W). You could tone or bleach density in or out, but, in all but the most extreme cases, it was best to just get the density right to begin with.</p>

<p>I am in a bit of a quandary. I had to shoot an event, a hockey game. All I had handy was Portra 400NC. Even with an F/2.8 lens, the lowest ISO I could get a usable exposure with (hoping I metered right) was EI 1000.<br /><br />I want to do a push process, but apparantly, this isn't really talked about in the Kodak literature except with Portra 800-2. Great, Kodak. Well, guess what, pushes happen, and I only had 400 on me. Would I have bought 800 had I known the light was that dim? Sure.<br /><br /><br />Anyway, I was thinking a two stop push would really pull things back. Granted there isn't much shadow detail on a hockey rink, just one big highlight, but I'd rather overdo it than underdo it.<br>

Also, the lights were normal hockey rink lights, some sort of vapor lamp, sodium vapor mercury vapor? Does anyone know what is common, and how that factors in? Obviously I want to make sure the blue and green curves are exposed/processed enough so as not to run into wonky colors, hence part of the reason for the underexposure.<br>

So should I request a +1 minute developer time? That's 30 sec per stop, and I went from 320 real speedto 640 one stop (1/3 of a stop true speed and 2/3 of a stop contrast) to 1000 two stops (no more true speed and another 2/3 stop of contrast).</p>

<p>But, I am confused, I see a 4- and 5-minute developer time mentioned for C-41 for 1- and 2- stop pushes, respectively.<br />Should I go for 5 minutes instead of 4-1/4, or is that for people who try to get a true stop, and real shadow speed back with pushes?</p>

<p>BTW, this is being done for scanning, not optical printing (does the latter even exist anymore?), but I'd rather give the scanner the easiest time reading the negative than have to add digital noise, even if I add grain instead.</p>

<p><br />Oh, and, as always, tight deadline, so immediate responses are appreciated!</p>