Using Cinema Film, leaving Anti Halation backing

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:


(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
radiographic use, and missile-tracking films for missile-tracking use,
and recording film for photographing oscilloscope screens.

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.

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/profe....9.16.46&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...184/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 **** 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.

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
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?

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
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.

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.

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
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.

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_englis...hael+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 ****ed 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

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:


(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
radiographic use, and missile-tracking films for missile-tracking use,
and recording film for photographing oscilloscope screens.

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.

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/profe....9.16.46&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...184/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 **** 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.

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
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?

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
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.

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.

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
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.

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_englis...hael+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 ****ed 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

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
Uranium Committee wrote:


(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
radiographic use, and missile-tracking films for missile-tracking use,
and recording film for photographing oscilloscope screens.

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.

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/profe....9.16.46&lc=en

http://www.kodak.com/global/en/profe...184/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 **** 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.

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
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?

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
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.

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.

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
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.

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_englis...hael+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 ****ed 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

del del
...Why do you even bother posting?

del del
...Why do you even bother posting?

Uranium Committee wrote:


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."

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.
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Uranium Committee wrote:


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."

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.
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote in message .. .
Uranium Committee wrote:

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.

"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."

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.

Alan Browne wrote in message .. .
Uranium Committee wrote:

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.

"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."

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.

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...

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.