Ari Michael Leeds Posted February 29, 2016 Share Posted February 29, 2016 Well, there are evaluations based on measurable response, and then there are those that really aren't. The former I get, the latter I don't.The basis of an opinion should be observable fact.As with many things, a lot of this experience has to do with the lab and the chemistry with this stuff. I've developed it myself, clip tests in D-76 still developer (originally designed for motion pictures though, so perfect evaluative test) and it's significantly finer than any Double-X. Prints just fine, fine-grained. No problem.If you want to criticize someone criticize Kodak, or maybe more appropriate, criticize B&W shooters for *not shooting enough.*As to ECN-2, it was designed to be faster so labs could process more, quickly. Before that, it was a room-temperature (almost, think it was 70-some Fahrenheit) process, that was far slower.At the beginning, there was more grain, more consistency issues, but they solved it, maybe thirty years ago.Cinematographers would have killed for the 50D and 200T stock of today. If they aren't contrasty enough, and are too fine-grained, push them a stop.It isn't really fair to criticize a film for becoming too fine-grained and too sharp, when the cinematographers who SHOT 5254 complained about these things, prompting the improvements that you now dislike. Nostalgia is fine, but it has to be rooted in practicality.The people who shot 5254 were STUCK with only 5254. Imagine having to shoot everything on 100-speed film, like an interior, candle-lit scene. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.