Vic: Kodak 7222 and 7231 are the only two B&W negative stocks that I know of; there are also Kodak's reversal stocks, 7276 and 7278. I really do like the contrasty look of the reversal stocks -- exposed correctly, and if you project the original camera negative, it looks better to my eye than a print of the negative stocks. But you can't always be projecting your camera original... And since I make several prints of my films for festivals, and because I need the exposure latitude, I shoot 7222 and 7231, and sometimes push either stock 1 stop. The bottom line, as anyone will tell you on this group, is test, test, test and experiment to find the look you want. The lens you shoot with makes a world of difference, too, both in perceived graininess of the image and contrast. Old Angie zooms look quite different than Zeiss primes. Good luck, julian
From: Alexander <mo007@earthlink.net> Reply-To: EclairACL@topica.com Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 08:20:26 -0700 To: EclairACL@topica.com Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245 Hi, Julian So what's the best B&W movie film to shoot on? Vic ----- Original Message ----- From: "Julian Williamson" <julian3rd@earthlink.net> To: <EclairACL@topica.com> Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3:51 PM Subject: Re: Eclair Cameras: T-max versus 7245Ian: Are you talking about bleach-bypassing a B&W print? I'm most familiarwiththe 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&wnegative,which brings me to my next question: Who has printed B&W negative to a color printstock, and what does it look like, especailly ifbleach-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, julianFrom: 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&Wor use a scalable process to skip 50% of the bleach, which would giveyoubetter 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 theydon'toffer a scalable process. When I was the Head Processor at Bono Film in Virginia, we processedsomeNike commercials that were shot on Optical Soundtrack Filmstock whichwashigh 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 Negativewhichalways looked milkier to me. I think anything shot with more lights at a lower ASA rating is alwaysgoingto look richer and more resemble technicolor, except for the color dyestheyused. -IanFrom: 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 SHINDLER'S LIST and some of WOODY ALLEN'S MOVIES).--- "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). http://calendar.yahoo.com_________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
==^================================================================ 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! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html ==^================================================================