Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,516   Posts: 1,572,131   Online: 1133
      
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28

    Aus - 4x5" Box of Pro 160S + 400ft of 35mm Vision1 500T

    Pro 160S box is 125g, 10 sheets, June 2011.
    $35


    500T 35mm 400ft roll suits 35mm bulk loading - if you cant find someone to remove the remjet for C-41 process - I can do that for you

    I've got one other can with 300ft left but I think I'll keep that, you got to rewind it onto a spool in the bulk loader in a change bag (what I do), or you can load it directly onto canisters with the spiny handle part stuck in the bottom of the canister, keep your hand over the edges of the reel of film so it doesnt come apart. Tape down the end of the film when done so it stays tight.
    $65

    35 N4740 (1866) EI
    5279 193 3101
    (c) 1996 < ~15 years old.

    Tin is 1.1kg. $13 Express including cost of packaging (about the same as regular for the weight).. but check auspost.com.au! 17.5cmx17.5cmx4cm 1.1kg

  2. #2
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,423
    Images
    2
    http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/...ide-films.html

    And some of us are in the process of finding out a reliable way to get ECN-II processing of short rolls from still cameras. So far so good, so you can buy this and get it processed the way it was supposed to be.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  3. #3
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    I've mixed up the ECN-2 recipe following the Kodak publication with also several variations, I havent seen benefit to it v C-41.

  4. #4
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,423
    Images
    2
    I understand that x-processing it as C-41 compromises its archival stability, but IDK. Just hoping to plug your sale.

  5. #5
    Athiril's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    2,626
    Images
    28
    Iirc it's not archival to begin with right? I dont think stabilisers were part of the ECN-2 process (if I remember), using actual stabiliser on the film then should be better for the long term.

  6. #6
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,423
    Images
    2
    As far as I know, it should be just as archival as C-41, when processed in the right stuff. I believe that the print films are less archival, since they are produced in mass quantities for projection. This film though, seeing as it's the original footage shot in the camera, should be as archival as anything or Paramount's gonna want their money back!

    I recall PE having something to say about it.. I mean... the Oracle.
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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