Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,229   Posts: 1,532,850   Online: 992
      
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21
  1. #11

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Woonsocket, RI USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,725
    Quote Originally Posted by mikewhi
    Can you tell me where you get Lucky film?
    You must have missed Donald's comment that it's available from J&C.

    Quote Originally Posted by clay
    Yeah, if you want the double X look, then use double X. You can still buy it in 35mm movie film stock. It is also called Eastman 5222 cine film. It also has the benefit of being much cheaper than regular film. 400 feet of the stuff will run you about $130 from film emporium.
    Conventional bulk rolls for 35mm still cameras are 100 feet. Converting the movie stock cost, that's $32.50 per 100 feet. Most big-name B&W films (Kodak, Ilford, etc.) cost about $30-$45 in 100-foot bulk rolls from B&H. Tri-X, in particular, is $29.95; and Fortepan 400 is $32.95. If you look hard, you can find other brands for less. Freestyle's various "Arista" house brands are mostly less than this. Their Arista EDU Ultra 400 is $19.99 for a 100-foot bulk roll.

    Speaking of which, Arista EDU Ultra is really Fomapan. I'm no expert on the "look" of older films, but I've seen comments to the effect that Foma and Efke emulsions have an "old-style" look. Thus, solvingday78 might want to try out Fomapan 400, available as such from both J&C and Freestyle, or as Freestyle's Arista EDU Ultra house brand.

    So to sum up, five films have been suggested as worth at least trying:

    • Fortepan 400
    • Lucky Pan 400
    • Efke 100
    • Fomapan 400
    • Eastman 5222 cine film


    All but the last of these are available from J&C, so I'd suggest going there and placing an order for a few rolls of each to try them out. The Eastman 5222 will cost a lot more to try, unless you go in with others to split a bulk roll or can find somebody who sells it spooled onto smaller 35mm cartridges.

  2. #12
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    In making images in the style of another period, it's important to look at photography as a system: the contribution of each component is buffered by the rest of the system.

    In other words, switching a film or a developer, or both, will make little contribution to a 1950's photojournalistic image if the printing technique doesn't change as well.

    As far as that goes, even if you were to get your hands on the same paper in use in 1951, you'd still make the picture look like a 2005 image unless you start with the aesthetic differences you see between then and now, and build from there.

    Using Tri X and D76, and your normal paper... probably with a different development system... will get you to what you're looking for. You'll change how you expose the film, the amount you agitate, and how long you develop. Can you guess what a vintage negative looked like ? Sit down with a stack of your pictures, and Life magazines, and see what you see.

    I'd even say that you'd have to try to get back into a Pre-Deconstruction, Pre-ironic, and Pre-Mostmodern mindset. There really is more to it than a 'skin' or a 'plug-in'.
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  3. #13
    Lee L's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,244
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    Pre-Mostmodern mindset
    Pre-Mostmodern = Pre-Postmodern?

    Whether it's a typo or a jibe, I like it. I know some people that I'm going to start referring to as "Mostmodernists".

    We now return you to your regularly scheduled topic...

    Lee

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    10

    cool...

    Thanks for all the info so far... besides Hp5 though, I have also shot alot with tri-x. I am looking for that grainy look for sure, but even with tri-x and d76 at 1:1, it still looks really clean. Sebastio Selgado I heard still shoots tri-x, but his stuff definately looks classic. I want to get that look down, so that when I find the right content, it will be magic. I saw on jandc's website that their classic 400 has a higher silver emulsion rate, thus giving it that look. I'm just curious if that in itself will do it for me. btw.. you can see what I've done so far at www.suspendedmotion.com most of what you see on there is tri-x.

  5. #15
    jd callow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Milan
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,002
    Images
    117
    I have shot sxx in 4x5 and it isn't that grainy. If anything it is on par with tri-x -- maybe less gainy. From my experience the beauty of SXX is how full and smooth the tonal range is.

    If MAS is about maybe he can shed some light.

    If grain is what you are after I think HP shows more grain than Tri-x and the 1600 films from Kodak and Ilford are really grainy.

    You could overexpose and under develope this often gets the grain going.

    *

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,670
    Kodak makes two motion picture films 5231 (ISO 80D, 64T) and 5222 (ISO 250D, 200T). Both of these films are intended to be printed on contrasty positive film stock. For still camera use I therefore recommend shooting them at 125D and 400D respectively to increase their contrast for printing on paper. Both films are panorthochromatic and have lower red sensitivity similar to the Efke films. This is evidenced by Kodak assigning different daylight and a tungsten speeds for each film. Both films have an oldtime feel to them.

  7. #17

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    [QUOTE=df cardwell]In making images in the style of another period, it's important to look at photography as a system: the contribution of each component is buffered by the rest of the system.

    I agree, not only the system but the mind set, high contrast for the photo half tone printing methods, cropping, and lots of burning in to isolate the main element of the photo. You might want to try Tix X or HP5 with DK50 or another high energy developer, push to 800 or 1000 and develop in Acufine and print at grade 4 or 5.

  8. #18
    df cardwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Dearborn,Michigan & Cape Breton Island
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,342
    Images
    8
    Most claims about higher silver content has been BS going back to the '70s.

    It's just one of those things...
    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid,
    and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision"

    -Bertrand Russell

  9. #19
    Jeremy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,767
    Images
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by srs5694
    Conventional bulk rolls for 35mm still cameras are 100 feet. Converting the movie stock cost, that's $32.50 per 100 feet.
    Clay got the pricing wrong and the minimum order. You can order short ends of 5222 (by short they mean less than 250ft) for $0.10/foot which would be $10/100ft bulk roll. If they don't have any around the 100ft length then I would expect a surcharge to have it cut down to that length, but I would not expect that surchage to be over $5 so you would still be around $15/100ft.
    Let's see what I've got in the magic trash can for Mateo!

    blog
    website

  10. #20
    clay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Asheville, North Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,118
    Images
    8
    Jeremy,

    The filmemporium people only sell short ends when they have them. Which is very rarely in the case of b&w movie stock. They will not cut down a roll for you. I waited for about a year for some short ends to magically appear, then just bit the bullet and ordered a whole 400 foot roll. The pricing I gave is accurate for a new fresh 400 foot roll. If you want it any time soon, that will be your only option....

    Clay

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy Moore
    Clay got the pricing wrong and the minimum order. You can order short ends of 5222 (by short they mean less than 250ft) for $0.10/foot which would be $10/100ft bulk roll. If they don't have any around the 100ft length then I would expect a surcharge to have it cut down to that length, but I would not expect that surchage to be over $5 so you would still be around $15/100ft.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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