Question about IN Flashing

jake loves · August 22, 2006

Hi Everyone

This is my first post though I have been enjoying readings the posts on this website for quite sometime now and have learned a lot. Especially from the posts by David Mullen.

I have tried searching this site and the net for info about Internegative Flashing but have not really found much on it.

It has been much discussed - the use of Ultracon filters, flashing, pulling, smoke, more fill light, etc to build information in the blacks if one is to finish a film on a print that will be bleach bypassed.

However, has anyone done tests with flashing the internegative as opposed to camera negative. The reason why I am asking this is because I repeatedly find myself on projects where the director and/or producers are not certain if they are or are not going to finish the movie with some form of bleach bypass (whether in percentages or a full 100% bleach bypass).

I would prefer to know upfront the goal for the finish so I can treat the camera negative accordingly. However, I would hate to flash the camera neg (or flatten the lighting thru more fill), use filters etc and then have the powers that be suddenly strike a normal print and have a flatter than intended finished look.

Any thoughts, first hand experiences or discoveries thru tests on internegative flashing as a method of contrast control for release print bleach bypass will be greatly appreciated.

Also, since some of these projects may be period films, I might also wish to flash the internegative with printer lights that can create warmer tones in just the blacks. Again, is there a difference in flashing camera negative to build color into the blacks as opposed to flashing the internegative for such an effect.

thanks

Jake

David Mullen ASC · August 22, 2006

I have only flashed negative, but the effect of flashing IN should be similar, a lifting of the blacks and lowering of contrast. Since IN stock is different than OCN, the flash percentages would have to be tested. I suspect that since you are already working with a compressed contrast range, the improvement in shadow detail from flashing will be less apparent when flashing the IN instead of the OCN.

Some people flash the IP so that each IN has the flash built in (since release prints are often made from multiple IN's struck from an IP.) "Tootsie" flashed the IP. It softens the contrast by darkening the whites a little.

I have also read about movies shot on color reversal that flashed a dupe neg struck off of the positive original.

I usually combined a negative flash with a silver retention positive process like ENR to restore the blacks (since I was flashing mostly to reduce color, not lift the blacks, plus flashing counteracts the build-up in contrast of a silver retention print process.)

Dan Horstman · August 22, 2006

Just an FYI

IN (Internegative) stock is used for making a negative from a reversal original or a positive projection print (for creating a new archival master)

DN (Dupe Negative) stock is used for making a negative from an IP (interpositive) element.

You can make an IN from an IP...but DN stock is specifically designed for this process and is cheaper.

I've seen a lot of people on this site refer to an IN when they really should be saying DN.

Dan

Dominic Case · August 22, 2006

You can make an IN from an IP...but DN stock is specifically designed for this process

Absolutely correct, Dan. Internegative stock is made with a low gamma to work from projection contrast material. Dupe negative stock is set up to work from a (low contrast) IP. It's confusing though - IP & IN seem to go well together as terms. But using Internegative stock to make a DN from an IP will give you extremely low contrast in the image.

Back to flashing: one effect of flashing camera negative - at the very toe of the curve - is the latensification effect, whereby some deep shadows that wouldn't expose at all on unflashed stock will just register, given the extra boost from the flashing. Flashing the dupe neg obviously won't do anything for those tones - if they aren't on the original image, you'll never get them.

David Mullen ASC · August 23, 2006

Absolutely correct, Dan. Internegative stock is made with a low gamma to work from projection contrast material. Dupe negative stock is set up to work from a (low contrast) IP. It's confusing though - IP & IN seem to go well together as terms. But using Internegative stock to make a DN from an IP will give you extremely low contrast in the image.

To be more precise, Kodak sells "Internegative" stock (for copying color reversal) and "Intermediate" stock (for copying color neg or another intermediate dupe) -- it's not called "dupe negative stock". The same stock is used to make a color IP or color IN / dupe negative.

Maybe it's a regional thing, but in Los Angeles labs, "internegative" is a common term for a copy made from an interpositive (I.P.) onto intermediate stock 5242, and the term I.N. is used interchangeably with the term "dupe negative". We often refer to the "I.P./I.N." process when making release prints. I hear "dupe negative" and "I.N." all the time at labs to describe the same thing. Look here at Technicolor's website at the definition of "I.N.":

http://www.technicolor.com/tcp/templates/s...NoModifyGuest#I

Dominic Case · August 23, 2006

the term I.N. is used interchangeably with the term "dupe negative".

I used to be quite didactic about the "correct" usage, and my opposite number at another lab nearby with was equally insistent about the term he had coined - "interdupe".

Then I figured that there were more useful things in life to argue about, and decided that the only people who really need to know which stock to print onto were the people in the lab, and they would refer to the stock numbers - 2244 or 2272 - which are so meaningless to anyone else that all confusion is avoided.