Using Cinema Film

"Scott Norwood" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Rod Smith wrote:
In article . net,
"Jeremy" writes:

The slides that were produced from those negs were not archival at all.
I
have many of them from the mid-70s where NO image is left. It is as
though
the images just vaporized, leaving only the base film left.

That's an issue with the copy film they used, not the original negative
film. I'd guess the copy film is the same stuff that's used for making
prints from movie negatives, but that's just a guess. FWIW, my Dale and
SFW slides from the mid-1980s still have good color. Maybe they improved
the stock in the decade between our experiences, or maybe a massive
decline occurs in the third decade, or maybe something about your storage
method has affected the copy slides but not the Kodachromes that you say
are fine.

Assuming that the slides were made using motion-picture print stock....

The Eastmancolor motion-picture stocks were significantly changed
in 1982, with the introduction of LPP (lowfade positive print)
color, which, as far as we know today, does not fade when stored
under decent conditions. Or at least prints made in 1982 and stored
under room temperature and humidity have not faded (yet). Before
LPP, Eastmancolor was a total disaster, fading to red/pink within
a few years. In the late '70s until 1982, "SP" stock was introduced;
the color on this is unstable--some SP prints look great today,
while others have turned to an ugly brown shade.

I'll add one complaint to your list: I've found that my ECN II negatives
have more in the way of scratches than my C-41 negatives from the same
period or before, so I suspect the stuff is less scratch-resistant.

That's likely to be a processing issue, not a stock issue.

I stopped using Eastmancolor emulsions during the time that 5247 had
replaced 5254. Dale Labs is still hawking slides from color negative films
(including any of the current consumer color films, not just cine films),
and they are claiming superior slides, but I've never gone back to the
"slides-and-prints-from-the-same-film" model.

With the advent of digital photography and film scanners, I suspect that
there is not much call for this product anymore. Kodak has discontinued
manufacturing slide projectors, Kodachrome appears to be all but abandoned,
and the connotation of the term "slide show" has changed to represent
viewing a series of images on a computer screen.

But, even back when I was still using Eastmancolor films, I remember that
the colors were not as saturated, the skies were often washed out unless
strong polarization was used when shooting, and there was low contrast
overall. A far cry from Kodachrome 25.

I discovered a box filled with 5254 and 5247 negs and their associated
slides in my attic after having been there for 25 years. Many of the slides
had no images at all, and the rest were badly deteriorated. It was as
though the slides were made with disappearing ink--the images were barely
viewable, and there was no color to speak of.

I used 3 different processors, and all of my slides have deteriorated at the
same rate, so it does not appear to be related to who processed the film and
made the slides.

If one really wants quality slides then they should stick to a good slide
film. The "prints-and-slides" model might be all right if the slides are
not critical. Slides from negatives are not nearly as satisfying as slides
from slide film.

I can't say much in defense of Eastmancolor or other cine films used in
still photography applications. My major gripe is this: I bought good
(expensive) equipment, I strived to use proper technique, I exposed
accurately, and I ended up with a product that was in some ways inferior to
that produced by a guy with a simple box camera. I failed to recognize that
a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I sacrificed many images,
and memories, for having been complacent. Think twice before committing to
cine films for still photos.

"Scott Norwood" wrote in message
...

In article ,
Rod Smith wrote:
In article . net,
"Jeremy" writes:

The slides that were produced from those negs were not archival at all.
I
have many of them from the mid-70s where NO image is left. It is as
though
the images just vaporized, leaving only the base film left.

That's an issue with the copy film they used, not the original negative
film. I'd guess the copy film is the same stuff that's used for making
prints from movie negatives, but that's just a guess. FWIW, my Dale and
SFW slides from the mid-1980s still have good color. Maybe they improved
the stock in the decade between our experiences, or maybe a massive
decline occurs in the third decade, or maybe something about your storage
method has affected the copy slides but not the Kodachromes that you say
are fine.

Assuming that the slides were made using motion-picture print stock....

The Eastmancolor motion-picture stocks were significantly changed
in 1982, with the introduction of LPP (lowfade positive print)
color, which, as far as we know today, does not fade when stored
under decent conditions. Or at least prints made in 1982 and stored
under room temperature and humidity have not faded (yet). Before
LPP, Eastmancolor was a total disaster, fading to red/pink within
a few years. In the late '70s until 1982, "SP" stock was introduced;
the color on this is unstable--some SP prints look great today,
while others have turned to an ugly brown shade.

I'll add one complaint to your list: I've found that my ECN II negatives
have more in the way of scratches than my C-41 negatives from the same
period or before, so I suspect the stuff is less scratch-resistant.

That's likely to be a processing issue, not a stock issue.

I stopped using Eastmancolor emulsions during the time that 5247 had
replaced 5254. Dale Labs is still hawking slides from color negative films
(including any of the current consumer color films, not just cine films),
and they are claiming superior slides, but I've never gone back to the
"slides-and-prints-from-the-same-film" model.

With the advent of digital photography and film scanners, I suspect that
there is not much call for this product anymore. Kodak has discontinued
manufacturing slide projectors, Kodachrome appears to be all but abandoned,
and the connotation of the term "slide show" has changed to represent
viewing a series of images on a computer screen.

But, even back when I was still using Eastmancolor films, I remember that
the colors were not as saturated, the skies were often washed out unless
strong polarization was used when shooting, and there was low contrast
overall. A far cry from Kodachrome 25.

I discovered a box filled with 5254 and 5247 negs and their associated
slides in my attic after having been there for 25 years. Many of the slides
had no images at all, and the rest were badly deteriorated. It was as
though the slides were made with disappearing ink--the images were barely
viewable, and there was no color to speak of.

I used 3 different processors, and all of my slides have deteriorated at the
same rate, so it does not appear to be related to who processed the film and
made the slides.

If one really wants quality slides then they should stick to a good slide
film. The "prints-and-slides" model might be all right if the slides are
not critical. Slides from negatives are not nearly as satisfying as slides
from slide film.

I can't say much in defense of Eastmancolor or other cine films used in
still photography applications. My major gripe is this: I bought good
(expensive) equipment, I strived to use proper technique, I exposed
accurately, and I ended up with a product that was in some ways inferior to
that produced by a guy with a simple box camera. I failed to recognize that
a chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and I sacrificed many images,
and memories, for having been complacent. Think twice before committing to
cine films for still photos.