Where can you find FUJI B/W stock in the US? Is it single perf? Do
they have 100ft or 200ft loads, or just 400ft?
Thanks.
Todd
On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, at 09:07 AM, sebastien koeppel wrote:
> yes I did test the ilford stock, maybe 8 years ago
> pan F is amazing, FP4 is good and HP5 is the most
> sensitive filmstock you can find
> I found it at a standard gamma devt at 800 asa !
> (developped at Dejonghe in Belgium ),
> and it has really acceptable grain
> the only problem with the HP5 was that it was really
> grey and I printed it on ST8 (agfa sound film stock)
> but developed in a standard chemical
> The FP4 and HP5 were contrasted enough
> even if I do agree on the problem of the black and
> white print today... ecological problems !!!
> I found some black and white 16mm or 8mm shot in late
> 40's and it's incredible sharp, beautiful contrast and
> range of greys !!! impossible to find and to do today
> !
>
> just to finish with ilford film, the main problem is
> that they really do not care of cinematography !
> they just make conditionning on ordering
> and I had some troubles with the HP5 : it jammed in
> the cameras ! I think the problem came from
> perforations...
> I just give advice to a DOP 3 years ago for a long
> feature he wanted to shoot on 35mm BW. He was a well
> known french DOP (Jean-Marie Dreujou) and the film was
> with Vanessa Paradis but he never get positive answer
> from Ilford and he finally shot on colour and make
> inters on BW...
> I find it crazy
>
> just try FUJI BW !!!
> they have ONE beautiful filmstock on 16 and 35
> 80 asa on departure, but easy to push !
> much more beautiful than kodak
>
> seb
>
> --- Julian Williamson <julian3rd@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> I really wasn't meaning to be overly pedantic; I'm
>> sure not everyone on the
>> list is equally familiar with how the stocks work.
>>
>> At any rate, color "ghost" grain looks different
>> than B&W grain, and Kodak's
>> current B&W stocks look much grainier than
>> equivalent-speed Vision stocks,
>> whether printed or telecine'd. I think we'd all be
>> delighted if Kodak would
>> make up some T-Max b&w stock in 16mm. I would like
>> to compare it.
>>
>> Has anyone seriously tested the Ilford 16mm B&W
>> stock?
>>
>> julian
>>
>>> From: Leo Vale <leoavale@yahoo.com>
>>> Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
>>> Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 11:05:08 -0700 (PDT)
>>> To: EclairACL@topica.com
>>> Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
>>>
>>>
>>> --- Julian Williamson <julian3rd@earthlink.net>
>> wrote:
>>>> I find it doubtful that any b&w emulsion would be
>>>> less "grainy" than color,
>>>> primarily because in B&W, the silver halide
>> crystals
>>>> remain in the emulsion,
>>>> whereas in color the crystals are used to
>> activate a
>>>> dye (which makes up the
>>>> image) and the actual silver halide is then
>> washed
>>>> away in the bleach stage
>>>> of color processing -- thus, there are no actual
>>>> "grains" but the remnants
>>>> of them left in color emulsions.
>>>
>>> ---Yes, but that's being overly pedantic.
>>> When those silver grains are bleached out of the
>>> emulsion, the blobs of dye left behind take the
>> form
>>> of the silver grain that vanished. Maybe the dye
>> will
>>> bleed a little, but that dye blob will look like
>>> grain.
>>>
>>> In a print what we perceive as grain is actually
>> the
>>> space between the grains. At that point, there's
>> no
>>> practical difference real grain and color ghost
>> grain.
>>>
>>> --- LV
>>>
>>> __________________________________
>>> Do you Yahoo!?
>>> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
>>> http://search.yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
>