Using Cinema Film, leaving Anti Halation backing

Hi all.

I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), and recently started
experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my
still camera.
I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see
the effect created. What came out was just mind blowing, the images
were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very
interesting visual effects.
Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance
of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random.
I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the
discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem,
and not staying with it.
Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to
somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison?

Thanks,
Tal.

On 11 Oct 2004 04:34:56 -0700, (Tal) wrote:

Hi all.

I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), and recently started
experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my
still camera.
I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see
the effect created. What came out was just mind blowing, the images
were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very
interesting visual effects.
Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance
of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random.
I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the
discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem,
and not staying with it.
Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to
somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison?

Thanks,
Tal.

I haven't done any short end developing in years. Does your
experience mean that Fuji is now using a RemJet backing, as has
Eastman all along? When I last used Fuji, they had an internal AH
layer that they claimed was more efficacious than Eastman's RemJet.
If they changed, why and what did they say about going to a less
effective AH layer?

Anyone?

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

(Tal) wrote in message . com...
Hi all.

Use conventional film and quite farting around with this ****.
Cimenmatographers are even stupider than still photographers. Moron.


I work as an assistant camerman (cinema), and recently started
experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my
still camera.
I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see
the effect created. What came out was just mind blowing, the images
were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very
interesting visual effects.
Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance
of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random.
I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the
discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem,
and not staying with it.
Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to
somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison?

Thanks,
Tal.

(Tal) wrote in message . com...
Hi all.

I work as an assistant camerman (cinema),

Are YOU the one who can't focus?

and recently started
experimenting with using some short ends of FUJI 35mm stock in my
still camera.

Moron.

I developed the film in a lab, requesting to leave the backing to see
the effect created. What came out was just mind blowing, the images
were covered with whats left of the backing, which made some very
interesting visual effects.

How many drugs are you on, moron?

Some things, however, were not so clear to me, such as the apperance
of lines all over the film, much like scratches but very random.

Gee, I wonder how high you'd register on a stupidometer.

I tried to look for other people who have done this, but most of the
discussions on the net are about ways to overcome the backing problem,
and not staying with it.

Hey, go shove a diffusion filter up your ass...

Does anyone have any experience with this, or maybe has a link to
somewhere with images so I can have some reference for comparison?

www.cinematographersaremorons.com


Thanks,
Tal.

Into the killfile, Uranium Committee.

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

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

Into the killfile, Uranium Committee.

In case you did not recognize that one, it was Michaelangelo Scarpitti .
. . a legend in his own mind. Sad that he has absolutely no imagination.
I wonder what his next fake posting name will morph into.


Gee, I wonder what would happen if I put transmission fluid into my
fuel tank. Does anybody here know? All I can find on the internet is
how to avoid leaks!
. . . . . . . . . .

I can imagine you doing that. ;-) I would even bet that you drank photo chemicals in the
past, just as a curiosity . . . . . . . . . .

Try this idea out, to keep the topic on film. There is a current professional fashion
photographer doing very interesting colour prints by spilling various types of teas into the
chemicals. It seems that they cause some unusual looking, somewhat random stains on the
prints. The results I have seen are a unique vision, and probably why that guy suddenly has
thousands of dollars of contracts, and clients waiting to use his creative vision.

That is what I mean by imagination. The original idea of leaving some staining or
contaminating agent on the film places another type of visual element, and some randomness,
onto each image. This is not much different than Polaroid manipulations, something I would be
surprised if you ever tried out. I have quite a few Polaroid manipulations that have been
exhibited, none of which I would call sharp images, but they do generate a great deal of
attention, smiles, and interest from viewers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

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.

So, people put E-6 films through C-41 and C-41 films through E-6 and
they think they are creative geniuses. 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!

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.

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.

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. Those make it incompatible with the requirements of the
still-camera labs. There are numerous still products. Use them.

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

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

Into the killfile, Uranium Committee.

In case you did not recognize that one, it was Michaelangelo Scarpitti .
. . a legend in his own mind. Sad that he has absolutely no imagination.
I wonder what his next fake posting name will morph into.


Gee, I wonder what would happen if I put transmission fluid into my
fuel tank. Does anybody here know? All I can find on the internet is
how to avoid leaks!
. . . . . . . . . .

I can imagine you doing that. ;-) I would even bet that you drank photo chemicals in the
past, just as a curiosity . . . . . . . . . .

Try this idea out, to keep the topic on film. There is a current professional fashion
photographer doing very interesting colour prints by spilling various types of teas into the
chemicals. It seems that they cause some unusual looking, somewhat random stains on the
prints. The results I have seen are a unique vision, and probably why that guy suddenly has
thousands of dollars of contracts, and clients waiting to use his creative vision.

That is what I mean by imagination. The original idea of leaving some staining or
contaminating agent on the film places another type of visual element, and some randomness,
onto each image. This is not much different than Polaroid manipulations, something I would be
surprised if you ever tried out. I have quite a few Polaroid manipulations that have been
exhibited, none of which I would call sharp images, but they do generate a great deal of
attention, smiles, and interest from viewers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

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.

So, people put E-6 films through C-41 and C-41 films through E-6 and
they think they are creative geniuses. 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!

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.

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.

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. Those make it incompatible with the requirements of the
still-camera labs. There are numerous still products. Use them.

Uranium Committee wrote:

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

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

Into the killfile, Uranium Committee.

In case you did not recognize that one, it was Michaelangelo Scarpitti .
. . a legend in his own mind. Sad that he has absolutely no imagination.
I wonder what his next fake posting name will morph into.


Gee, I wonder what would happen if I put transmission fluid into my
fuel tank. Does anybody here know? All I can find on the internet is
how to avoid leaks!
. . . . . . . . . .

I can imagine you doing that. ;-) I would even bet that you drank photo chemicals in the
past, just as a curiosity . . . . . . . . . .

Try this idea out, to keep the topic on film. There is a current professional fashion
photographer doing very interesting colour prints by spilling various types of teas into the
chemicals. It seems that they cause some unusual looking, somewhat random stains on the
prints. The results I have seen are a unique vision, and probably why that guy suddenly has
thousands of dollars of contracts, and clients waiting to use his creative vision.

That is what I mean by imagination. The original idea of leaving some staining or
contaminating agent on the film places another type of visual element, and some randomness,
onto each image. This is not much different than Polaroid manipulations, something I would be
surprised if you ever tried out. I have quite a few Polaroid manipulations that have been
exhibited, none of which I would call sharp images, but they do generate a great deal of
attention, smiles, and interest from viewers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

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.



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.

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.



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?



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.


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. 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. I would bet you don't use a medium format, nor a large format, camera at
all.

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.

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?

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Uranium Committee wrote:

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

Gordon Moat wrote in message ...
"Michael A. Covington" wrote:

Into the killfile, Uranium Committee.

In case you did not recognize that one, it was Michaelangelo Scarpitti .
. . a legend in his own mind. Sad that he has absolutely no imagination.
I wonder what his next fake posting name will morph into.


Gee, I wonder what would happen if I put transmission fluid into my
fuel tank. Does anybody here know? All I can find on the internet is
how to avoid leaks!
. . . . . . . . . .

I can imagine you doing that. ;-) I would even bet that you drank photo chemicals in the
past, just as a curiosity . . . . . . . . . .

Try this idea out, to keep the topic on film. There is a current professional fashion
photographer doing very interesting colour prints by spilling various types of teas into the
chemicals. It seems that they cause some unusual looking, somewhat random stains on the
prints. The results I have seen are a unique vision, and probably why that guy suddenly has
thousands of dollars of contracts, and clients waiting to use his creative vision.

That is what I mean by imagination. The original idea of leaving some staining or
contaminating agent on the film places another type of visual element, and some randomness,
onto each image. This is not much different than Polaroid manipulations, something I would be
surprised if you ever tried out. I have quite a few Polaroid manipulations that have been
exhibited, none of which I would call sharp images, but they do generate a great deal of
attention, smiles, and interest from viewers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

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.



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.

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.



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?



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.


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. 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. I would bet you don't use a medium format, nor a large format, camera at
all.

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.

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?

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