Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 69,906   Posts: 1,521,423   Online: 1066
      
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48
  1. #21
    Mainecoonmaniac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,908
    Images
    6
    Remember a company called Seattle Film Works that sold film that gave you slides and prints? I've been told that it's movie film. My cousin told me that some companies bought leftover ends of movie film and repackaged it as 35mm film. Don't know if it's true, but I've been told that movie film stock is on a thicker base and can be hard on 35mm cameras. Can APUGers verify that?

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Central Illinois
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    659
    Yes, Seattle Filmworks used to offer processing of color film that would give you both slides and prints. When I first started using them in the late 80's they did indeed offer cine film (I believe it was 5247 and 5294), and later expanded their offerings to include some other varieties of cine film as well as C-41 films.

    The slides weren't bad either. Not as good IMHO as real slide films, but not bad.

    Several rolls of cine film went through my Pentax ME Super with no problem.
    ME Super

    Shoot more film.
    There are eight ways to put a slide into a projector tray. Seven of them are wrong.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    148
    I have shot quite a bit of 5222 over the course of the last 8 or so years. One problem I have found with it, and this could be a good thing depending on your perspective, is it is quite flat. It is difficult to get a lot of contrast out of the film. For scanning it is great but for printing in the darkroom not so much. If it is developed in a staining developer like Pyrocat it is nearly impossible to blow out a highlight. The range of the film can absorb almost anything in this case. Again, it is either a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

    As far as quality goes, I have never seen a defect in the emulsion of 5222.

  4. #24
    cmacd123's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Stittsville, Ontario
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    984
    I think most o fteh posint have been touched on.

    1) 2302/5302 is a slow print film, think contact paper emulsion on film base.
    2) Movie negative uses BH1866 Perfs, while still film and print film uses KS 1870 perfs, the 4 tens of a thou difference does not bother any still camera I have tried them in.
    3) that SO film, did it have a name? I can think of a couple of SO numbers that are sold as leaders for testing processing machines, and are in effect rejected stock. if anything Motion picture use requires the tightest quality control as images less than half frame camera sizw are projected on a 40 foot screen.
    4) movie colour negative almost always has a rem-jet backing, which has a special step in the movie process to remove.
    5)35mm movie film cranks through the Camera at 90 feet a minute. so if at the end of a shot there is only a couple of hundred feet left in the camera it is sold as a "Short end" to low budget productions. You can find that sort of stuff on e-bay look for "35mm vison" or "35mm eterna" but the remjet will make it hard to process.
    6) several films including seatle film works used to repackage movie ends and do the slides and prints deals. they had a semi-captive audience as a roll of movie film will kill all the chemicals in a mini lab as the rem jet slowly dissolves.
    Charles MacDonald
    aa508@ncf.ca
    I still live just beyond the fringe in Stittsville

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Quote Originally Posted by M. Lointain View Post
    I have shot quite a bit of 5222 over the course of the last 8 or so years. One problem I have found with it, and this could be a good thing depending on your perspective, is it is quite flat. It is difficult to get a lot of contrast out of the film. For scanning it is great but for printing in the darkroom not so much. If it is developed in a staining developer like Pyrocat it is nearly impossible to blow out a highlight. The range of the film can absorb almost anything in this case. Again, it is either a good or bad thing depending on your perspective.

    As far as quality goes, I have never seen a defect in the emulsion of 5222.
    I don't know if this is the source of the low contrast problem. There are many that erroniously believe that films like 5222 must be developed in a special low contrast developer like Kodak D-96. This is not true. Using HC-110 or Rodinal I haven't had any problem with low contrast. This film is rated at ISO 250 for cine exposure in daylight. BUT this is because cine negative is intended to be printed on a high contrast positive stock. I rate this film at an EI of 400 and it produces beautiful snappy prints. BTW, I have processed hundreds of rolls of 5222.

    It's SOP to underexpose a film and develop it longer to get better contrast. Film speeds are suggestions for the film's intended purpose. If you use a film for a different purpose you may have to make adjustments.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 04-27-2012 at 09:58 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  6. #26
    David Lyga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,222
    OK you have all informed me. And looking at the current prices for 5222 I find that in 35mm it is available ONLY in either 400 feet or 1000 feet. The 1000 feet is $350 so the bargain has just withered away, folks. There really is no savings when you figure that you can buy quality film from Freestyle Photo for as low as about $30 per 100 feet. - David Lyga

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Southern USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,769
    Buyng "short ends" is a cheap way to obtain cine film. There are several sites on the web that do this. I used to buy from a company in NYC can't remember the name. I have gotten BW and color negative for 5 to 15 cents per foot. There are a some Kodak color negative films that do not have a remjet backing and are processed in C-41.
    Last edited by Gerald C Koch; 04-28-2012 at 12:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral.

    ~Antoine de Saint-Exupery

  8. #28
    flatulent1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Seattle USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,278
    Quote Originally Posted by georg16nik View Post
    David,
    I use B&W 35mm cine film, decades ago it was ORWO, now is mostly Polypan F - Polyester base, silver rich emulsions, vintage look.
    No anti-halation backing on the ones I've used/use but I dont care about anti-halation backing.
    I would take that any day, instead of the packed triacetate films that he "big" companies sell for >3 US$ for cartridge.
    They screwed themselves, big time.

    G
    I just received a 90m roll of this yesterday. The lack of an AH layer (and the price) is what got my interest. But there are precious few examples with processing info available! Do you have some you'd be willing to post? I have a starting point (box... er, can speed + ID11) but am looking for a hint as to how to proceed from there.
    Fred Latchaw
    Seattle WA


    I am beginning to resent being referred to as 'half-fast'.
    Whatever that's supposed to mean.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Germany
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    650
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by flatulent1 View Post
    I just received a 90m roll of this yesterday. The lack of an AH layer (and the price) is what got my interest. But there are precious few examples with processing info available! Do you have some you'd be willing to post? I have a starting point (box... er, can speed + ID11) but am looking for a hint as to how to proceed from there.
    I can share some Polypan F examples souped in Tetenal Ultrafin liquid, Neofin Blue, Rodinal and A49. I usually shoot it filtered, orange, blue, yellow, green.
    Next week when I am back in town and have some time I will pull up some scans and post.
    If You are in a hurry, the times given in the Massive Dev Chart are good starting point for the devs I mentioned. I haven't tried in ID11 or D76 but the times looks good to me.

    Polypan F got very good latitude, the grain is tight, so its hard to go wrong. When You open the canister, the roll is in a plastic bag and the end of the roll is taped with a very sticky tape, You might wanna cut away the first 20cm.

    Good luck and have fun!

  10. #30
    gorbas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Vancouver, BC, Canada
    Shooter
    35mm Pan
    Posts
    323
    Hi georg16nik, can you be more precise with listing of other film manufacturers other than Kodak, Ilford, Fuji, Foma who offer "great materials"? ORWO? Lucky? EFKE? What else is left?
    Thank you in advance!

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin