Shooting print stock

[Paul Bruening]

I know we've been here a few times. I was wondering if there were any new observations about it. Did everyone decide that the ASA was in the ballpark of 5 or 6? How did it transfer in a scan? Was it fast enough to get sunny day exposures? How does it hold up to the kinds of contrasts found on sunny days? Any thing else you'd like to throw in is welcome. I'm kind of hoping that it has become a well enough researched topic that we can get a comprehensive answer to this technique.

[Ara Mah]

I know we've been here a few times. I was wondering if there were any new observations about it. Did everyone decide that the ASA was in the ballpark of 5 or 6? How did it transfer in a scan? Was it fast enough to get sunny day exposures? How does it hold up to the kinds of contrasts found on sunny days? Any thing else you'd like to throw in is welcome. I'm kind of hoping that it has become a well enough researched topic that we can get a comprehensive answer to this technique.

 

hey i don't know if this helps, but i've been working with hi-con 7363 film stock this past year for my film, and i can say that i got amazing results with it, rating it at 8 ASA. it is usually between 6- 10, but i rate it at 8 which gave me some really good results. i never had difficulty in shooting outside especially on sunny days. i also did some long exposures frame by frame under low light and i also had amazing results. of course as you know, its latency is not that good, i would say maybe 1 stop or less, so you have to get the exposure spot on. i would suggest using a spot meter instead of an incident light meter, and taking the reading of the brighter parts of your subject or whatever which is a good way to get a contrasty image. but of course the amount of contrast also depends on the quality of light, if its midday or afternoon...

 

cheers!

 

P.S. i processed 7363 in two ways, one as negative, with D-19 and fixer, and also as reversal, and i found that processing as negative gave me more contrast. so maybe process as negative, and ask for a positive print?

[Simon Wyss]

P.S. i processed 7363 in two ways, one as negative, with D-19 and fixer, and also as reversal, and i found that processing as negative gave me more contrast. so maybe process as negative, and ask for a positive print?

Prolsit, whether Lady or Gentleman, would you please be so kind to indicate your full name as is requested by this forum's rules.

 

As to reversing -363: naturally you have less contrast. It's not a true reversal film but a rather thin layer especially designed for making sharp titles and the like.

[Brian Pritchard]

I know we've been here a few times. I was wondering if there were any new observations about it. Did everyone decide that the ASA was in the ballpark of 5 or 6? How did it transfer in a scan? Was it fast enough to get sunny day exposures? How does it hold up to the kinds of contrasts found on sunny days? Any thing else you'd like to throw in is welcome. I'm kind of hoping that it has become a well enough researched topic that we can get a comprehensive answer to this technique.

One thing to remember is that print stock does not have the same layer order as colour negative and it does not have a yellow filter layer to prevent the red and green layers being exposed by blue light. This means that if you over-expose you will get some colour distortions. The separation between the colours is achieved by differential speeds in the three layers. Normally print stock is exposed to tungsten light which has less blue light than daylight and also the relative exposure can be adjusted in the printer to get the correct colour balance. You might find you need to use a yellow filter to get the right balance of exposure in the three layers, you could try a W85 as a start. Of course using filters will reduce the speed of the film which is already very low.

 

Brian

[John Sprung]

Did everyone decide that the ASA was in the ballpark of 5 or 6? How did it transfer in a scan? Was it fast enough to get sunny day exposures? How does it hold up to the kinds of contrasts found on sunny days?

 

I did this back in the early 1970's. ASA 2-3 was more like it. I just projected it as-is, scanning wasn't an option back then. Exposure on a sunny day was fine. I shot a little bit of normal motion, but mostly I hung a bolex on a bicycle, and walked around clicking off one frame per rev of the tire. IIRC, that worked out to something like 160 miles an hour when projected at 24 fps.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Paul Bruening]

One thing to remember is that print stock does not have the same layer order as colour negative and it does not have a yellow filter layer to prevent the red and green layers being exposed by blue light. This means that if you over-expose you will get some colour distortions. The separation between the colours is achieved by differential speeds in the three layers. Normally print stock is exposed to tungsten light which has less blue light than daylight and also the relative exposure can be adjusted in the printer to get the correct colour balance. You might find you need to use a yellow filter to get the right balance of exposure in the three layers, you could try a W85 as a start. Of course using filters will reduce the speed of the film which is already very low.

 

Brian

 

Thanks for the color tips, Brian. I'm not finding a W85 filter on the web. Is this in the line of Kodak 85 series of amber filters? Or, do you mean the kind of yellow that B&W photographers use?

 

John,

 

I'm glad to hear you've actually shot some. I've passed print stock through Frankenmitchell and it ran with no apparent problems. Though, it may take some shot and processed film to reveal less obvious problems. As I understand it, Mitchells were made to run two layers of film, one print+one negative, for special effects-double exposures.

 

I got some mid-day meter readings at ASA 6 and came back with completely usable stops. ASA 3 ought to be just as doable. I'm calculating a rough estimate in my head of f2.8. Even with a color correcting filter f2 should do. When you think about it, it might be a sensible way to shoot shallow focus without a stack of ND filters. I definitely like the cost and processing savings of print stock. As well, a 2000' roll lasts 45 minutes in my Techniscope camera. That's close to video tape lengths.

 

I've been watching some silent films lately. Some of those exterior, shallow focus shots are stunning. I'm hoping I can get something like that with print stock, thinking that print stock will expose in the neighborhood of that negative stock near the turn of that century.

 

Has anyone seen an inverted scan of print stock shot as camera negative? Is there a sample on the web somewhere that is zoomed in enough to reveal the grain?

[John Sprung]

The main thing with print stock is the contrast. Negative has a gamma of IIRC 0.65. Print stock gamma is more like 2.2. So, no way can you print from it to get anywhere near a normal looking positive. It's strictly for weird high contrast stuff.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

[Simon Wyss]

Yes, you can. I once did such a job on commission. The client loaded 7302 into her camera, later we printed onto 7234. Besides the fog due to 7234's gray base we had a beautiful image.

 

Furthermore, with Gigabitfilm such things are still easier to achieve today.

Edited April 8, 2009 by Simon Wyss

[Dominic Case]

Are we talking black and white or colour here? There are different issues with each.

 

With regard to gamma, in b/w, negative gamma is normally around 0.65, and print gamma between 2.1 and 2.5. In colour, negative gamma is more like 0.50, and print gamma is 3.3 or higher in the case of Premier stock.

 

Brian makes good points about the colour sensitivity of colour print stock. As it is balanced for a tungsten printer lamp, you'd need a Wratten 85 or similar (that's the W85 that Brian referred to). But in addition, print stock is balanced to see a colour negative image, which has a strong orange cast as a result of the masking dyes. So really you need a double 85 to get back to a neutral-ish exposure. Even then, you won't get accurate colour reproduction - but if you wanted that you wouldn't be using print stock in your camera anyway.

 

If you use 7302 b/w print stock in your camera, remember that it is only blue-sensitive. Blues will be reproduced unnaturally light, reds, greens and yellows will be much darker than normal. Skin tones in particular are darkened. There is no filtering that can correct this.

 

As Simon says, you can get back to normal image gamma if you make a print on neg stock such as 7234. But the extreme high contrast of the print stock on the camera means that it has very limited latitude: you'll get blacks crushing and highlights blowing all in the one shot. Soot and whitewash as it used to be called.

 

But, once again, you wouldn't be doing this if you wanted accurate reproduction.

[Ara Mah]

Hey Paul, well i'm including the digitized image (poor quality - sorry for that) of a frame from my film that i did this past year, this scene was shot with 7363 (hi-con print stock), processed as negative (D-19 and fixer) and this is the positive. it was rated at 8 ASA, at 1.4 and at 12fps. so that's like at 1 f-stop at 24fps. you can see the contrast i got with these settings. the day was not really sunny, but not overcast either.

[K Borowski]

Wow, Ara, all I can say is "trippy".

 

Nice look though.

 

I like the selective focus too. Was that some sort of tilt/shift, or wide-angle shot wide open?

[Ara Mah]

Wow, Ara, all I can say is "trippy".

 

Nice look though.

 

I like the selective focus too. Was that some sort of tilt/shift, or wide-angle shot wide open?

 

 

Hey Karl, thanks, yeah it was a 10mm wide angle lens wide open aperture. :)

[Paul Bruening]

Hey Paul, well i'm including the digitized image (poor quality - sorry for that) of a frame from my film that i did this past year, this scene was shot with 7363 (hi-con print stock), processed as negative (D-19 and fixer) and this is the positive. it was rated at 8 ASA, at 1.4 and at 12fps. so that's like at 1 f-stop at 24fps. you can see the contrast i got with these settings. the day was not really sunny, but not overcast either.

 

Fascinating, Ara. Thanks for showing that to us.

 

I'm getting stops to spare on sunny days even rating the stock at ASA 3 and knocking off an additional stop for an 85 filter. There's even room to double the 85's and work with my faster Nikons. I'm looking forward to seeing what happens. I guess I could start begging labs for samplers of left-over print stocks.

[K Borowski]

I guess I could start begging labs for samplers of left-over print stocks.

 

At least from my experience, you wouldn't have to beg for 35mm print stock ends. They commonly scrap even several hundred feet at the end of a roll.

[chris descor]

[Leo Anthony Vale]

 

Okay. Frames from 'Buffalo 66' which was shot on Ektachrome camera stock.

 

How does this relate to shooting with print stock?

[Jeremy Farkas]

I'm about to shoot a test roll of 7363 hi-con, and I have some questions about processing it as reversal. I'm not sure yet if I'm going to hand process it or send it to a lab. From what I've read, D-19 will work, with Dektol as the second developer. Has anyone done this, and with what kind of results?

 

As far as using a lab, I've spoken to Film and Video Services in Milwaukee about processing it. They were worried about the kodak reversal bleach. Since they last processed hi-con, kodak changed the bleach formula and now they're not certain about the chemistry. Anyone know if the new kodak reversal bleach will work with 7363? Anything special that I should tell the lab? Or, even better, does anyone know of a lab that'll do a good job on 7363 reversal?

[Jim Carlile]

Here's the 7363 data sheet:

 

http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Produ..._Films/5363.htm

 

The info is here.

[Hal Smith]

I've read posts on cml talking about using print stock in a camera. There's a concern that since print stock is on an Estar base that if you get a camera jam it won't break like negative film, it may break the camera instead.