Shooting print stock.

Paul Bruening · October 27, 2006

Hello Gents,

I've fished for this info before and didn't quite get what I was looking for. I'm trying it again. Is there an ASA equivalent for Kodak print stocks? If not ASA then how about footcandles or lux? I'm aware that it does not respond to color as negative or reversal will. What are the percent differences in either CMY or RGB terms compared to a close counterpart (speed notwithstanding) in negative or reversal?

Who wants to jump on this one?

Paul

John Pytlak RIP · October 27, 2006

Hello Gents,

I've fished for this info before and didn't quite get what I was looking for. I'm trying it again. Is there an ASA equivalent for Kodak print stocks? If not ASA then how about footcandles or lux? I'm aware that it does not respond to color as negative or reversal will. What are the percent differences in either CMY or RGB terms compared to a close counterpart (speed notwithstanding) in negative or reversal?

Who wants to jump on this one?

Paul

Color print stocks are designed for printing orange masked negative films using tungsten printer lamps operating at low color temperature -- the blue speed is MUCH faster than the green or red. They will need SIGNIFICANT orange filtration, even with tungsten lighting. Contrast is MUCH higher than color negative. Start your testing at about an exposure index of only 2.

Paul Bruening · October 27, 2006

Thanks John. That's what I was looking for.

Paul Bruening · October 27, 2006

John,

Can you suggest about how much orange is needed? Does Kodak make a camera filter orange enough or would I have to mount a printer lens?

Dominic Case · October 27, 2006

As John says, first, you need to correct for the colour temperature of the light source (i.e convert daylight to a fairly low colour temp quartz halogen lamp). That is going to be at least an 85 filter.

Then you need to compensate for the lack of an orange masking filter in the expected subject (print stock is designed to look at a colour negative). I have often used a 50R CC and a 50Y CC filter together to achieve this - but as negative masking has changed over the years, that could be a bit strong now.

You might find that two 85 filters would get you somewhere close - remembering that the contrast and colorimetry of the emulsion aren't desigend to reproduce a real scene, so it's never going to be a precise result. If two doesn't do it, try three.

Don't forget your EI rating is going to be in single figures. Or that the perforations are different on print film.

kelly tippett · October 27, 2006

Don't forget your EI rating is going to be in single figures. Or that the perforations are different on print film.

Perf different? Could you elaborate? Differ how? I have some print film too and I'm curious about the perf. Is that because it is A wind and not B wind for camera? Even if it is A could it still run. I've heard it can.

Ya'll are talking about shooting print right?

Edited October 27, 2006 by kelly tippett

Jon Kukla · October 27, 2006

I believe that the perf pitch and shape are the main differences.

John Pytlak RIP · October 27, 2006

Perf different? Could you elaborate? Differ how? I have some print film too and I'm curious about the perf. Is that because it is A wind and not B wind for camera? Even if it is A could it still run. I've heard it can.

Ya'll are talking about shooting print right?

Print film is usually "long pitch", whereas camera films are usually "short pitch" --- about a 0.2% difference, but can have a significant effect on camera noise and steadiness.

Also, 35mm print is usually KS perfs (KS-1870), and 35mm camera film is BH perfs (BH-1866). Perf height of KS is 0.078 inches, of BH is 0.073 inches --- so the KS perfed print film will not be properly positioned by a BH registration pin in the camera.

kelly tippett · October 28, 2006

Print film is usually "long pitch", whereas camera films are usually "short pitch" --- about a 0.2% difference, but can have a significant effect on camera noise and steadiness.

Also, 35mm print is usually KS perfs (KS-1870), and 35mm camera film is BH perfs (BH-1866). Perf height of KS is 0.078 inches, of BH is 0.073 inches --- so the KS perfed print film will not be properly positioned by a BH registration pin in the camera.

Do you know anything about 7390 color print? How would it come out as a negative? I was planning of shooting a test strip.

Checking other message boards I've gotten mixed feelings about it. I've heard it could come out off color, shaky, and really not too good. But one fellow said his came out reasonably well. So I'm running a test from a place that has done it before.

I believe it is called cross processing? Might make for a good flashback scene or as black and white?

David Venhaus · October 28, 2006

Do you know anything about 7390 color print? How would it come out as a negative? I was planning of shooting a test strip.

I have shot 7390 and cross processed as both color neg(C41)and b+w neg. If you want to shoot with this stock you will have to have a camera that can handle long perf. pitch. You won't be able get this machine processed in most places because the film emulsion is not pre-hardened, and in its the intended process ME-4, there is a hardener step before the developer. So in a regular ECN-2 or B+W machine, the elmusion would basically slide/fall/melt off in processing. If you are careful, you can develop it in a spiral reel developing tank without the pre-hardener and/or at a lower temperature. It's asa is low, about 3 to 6, if I remember correctly, so you would need to be shooting in full sunlight @24fps w/ a 1.8 f/stop with no filters. Developed negs. are very grainy. In the color negs, the most noticable color shift is a heighting of the blue levels. I printed onto 7203 (B+W) and the image looked stable and sharp just VERY grainy.

David Venhaus · October 28, 2006

Sorry, won't let me edit my previous post. I meant to say I printed onto 7302 not 7203

October 29, 2006

I was going to start a new thread, but this one seems appropriate.

I just shot a few tests on some Eastman Color Intermediate Stock, 7243. All in all, the tests turned out pretty interesting.

I assumed an ASA of 12. For the exterior tests, I used just daylight and filmed with two 85 filters, then just one, then no filtration, and bracketed a few stops on either side of 12 for each.

First of all, I found that the ASA was closer to 3. The shots with two 85 filters came out the most natural in terms of color rendition, which is not saying much. It was a bizarre image, with the blue, yellow, and red squares on the chip chart exposing properly, and every other square coming out almost monochromatic. The skin tones looked basically black-and-white. I don't know what kind of filtration would have helped. The exterior tests looked almost like two-strip technicolor. Definitely an interesting effect that I will try to employ at some point.

Oddly enough, for the interior tests, I used an 85 filter and large tungsten sources, and the color rendition came out extremely natural. Every square on the chip chart was the right color and saturation, and skin tones looked like, well, old Kodak stock. Still an interesting look. And with a better transfer, the image would be pretty much grainless. Hard to tell with a dailies transfer from this particular facility (also, tons of scratches... either from the oldness of the stock, or more likely, the fact that I had to spool it onto 400' cores from the 1000' reel it came on, on an old reel-to-reel system).

Does anyone know why there would be a color discrepancy from tungsten light to daylight? Something about an incomplete spectrum? I will post stills of the tests as soon as I get the files on my computer.

Dominic Case · October 30, 2006

Even if it is A could it still run. I've heard it can.

Not unless you rewind it first. That is the difference between A-wind and B-wind as the terms are applied to raw stock. A-wind would have the perfs on the wrong edge of the film, so it wouldn't run in the camera. Rewinding it in a darkroom would effectively turn it about so the perfs were correctly positioned.

Do you know anything about 7390 color print?

Yes. It's very very old. Don't expect anything predictable to come from it - and don't even think about sending it to a regular motion picture lab, either for reversal processing or for cross processing. If they were to put it through the ECN2 process, you would probably get the film base back, and they would keep a lot of the emulsion. It would be in small shreds, clogging up the filters on the processing machine. Not a good result for anyone.

kelly tippett · October 30, 2006

...and they would keep a lot of the emulsion. It would be in small shreds, clogging up the filters on the processing machine. Not a good result for anyone.

thanks, I'll send send this note to the guy that said he would do it. He says he has done it before so it may be something he understands, but just in case i will let him know.

John Pytlak RIP · October 31, 2006

Color print films and color intermediate films have very different and more "narrow" spectral sensitivity than camera films, and the contrast is MUCH higher, so don't expect natural color reproduction when used as a camera original.

7390 was introduced early in my career at Kodak. 7390 and 7389 were retired long ago. Using really old films is a "crap shoot", and you usually get crap, especially when the specified process is no longer available. (The films from before the mid-1970's are not forehardened, and will not survive modern high temperature processes).

kelly tippett · November 3, 2006

Color print films and color intermediate films have very different.....(The films from before the mid-1970's are not forehardened, and will not survive modern high temperature processes).

thanks, I'll send this along too. I'm going to relay this to the guy and let him decide on rather or not to process it. I'll wait a couple of weeks before doing and sending the test in case there are some more posts about it.