[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245


Are you talking about bleach-bypassing a B&W print?  I'm most familiar with
the still B&W process and didn't realize that B&W prints were "bleached".
Could you explain?

Or were you talking about bleach bypassing a color print of a b&w negative,
which brings me to my next question:  Who has printed B&W negative to a
color printstock, and what does it look like, especailly if bleach-bypassed?
I'm looking for a contrasty, warmish tone from a black and white negative
and wonder how printing to color printstock would perform.

Thanks in advance,

From: Ian  <i_turpen@hotmail.com>
Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 11:52:42 -0700
To: EclairACL@topica.com
Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245

If you wanted to retain more silver, you could bleach bypass the B&W print
or use a scalable process to skip 50% of the bleach, which would give you
better blacks and more contrast.

I've never read of anyone doing this with B&W.

Alpha Cine in Seattle doesn't charge a set-up fee for this, but they don't
offer a scalable process.

When I was the Head Processor at Bono Film in Virginia, we processed some
Nike commercials that were shot on Optical Soundtrack Filmstock which was
high contrast and low ASA, but wasn't as extreme as Hi-Con or Kodalith.

I always liked the look of Black & White Reversal compared to Negative which
always looked milkier to me.

I think anything shot with more lights at a lower ASA rating is always going
to look richer and more resemble technicolor, except for the color dyes they


From: Leo Vale <leoavale@yahoo.com>

Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com
To: EclairACL@topica.com
Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 09:50:35 -0700 (PDT)

--- Mark <super16acl@aol.com> wrote:
Issues of grain aside ... I believe that real B&W
film, photographed and lit
correctly for B&W contrast, has a unique look when
projected that can't be
duplicated when color neg is printed in B&W. Perhaps
I'm being too Artsy here.
--- I'll buy that about the B/W.  If nothing else,
there's the use of color filters for fine tonal
control.  You can't really use that on color stock for
a B/W print or transfer.

All I know is that when I see an original 35mm print
of Citizen Kane, or the B&W
Nykvist/Bergman films of the 50s, there has been
nothing like that look to
come out on the silver screen since the demise of
real B&W, (except perhaps

--- "Print" and "real B&W" point to the problem.
I spent two and a half years restoring Fox Movietone
Newsreels, so I got to look at a lot of nitrate fine
grains and prints.  Another six years of restoration
work gave me a chance to see more nitrates.
Modeern B/W prints just don't ccompare, they look so
anemic next to a nitrate print.
1000' of nitrate is and feels heavier than 1000' of
acetate.  The nitrate has more silver.  That shows on
the screen. Velvety blacks and rich tones.

Shortly after acetate replaced nitrate, manufacturers
drasticly reduced the amount of silver in photographic
film.  The way that ASA film speed is determined had
to be modified to account for this.  And, of course,
the manufacturers have been cutting back on the silver
ever since.
I suspect that one of the reasons for the richness of
the color in three-strip Technicolor negs and even of
Eastman color neg from the early 50s is due to the
higher silver content.

I don't know that anything can be done about this.
I'm inclined to think that B/W is a lost art.
I also think that all B/W movies should be in 'Scope

yours in TohoScope,

--- LV

Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

This email was sent to: elroro@propagandaindustries.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84xYK.bdbHPA.ZWxyb3Jv
Or send an email to: EclairACL-unsubscribe@topica.com

TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!