Jump to content

Tri-X as a negative


Recommended Posts

Hi Samuel,

 

Thanks for liking that shot.

500T (5219) rated at 400.

I have a vintage set of 6x6 Supa Frost filters. The person who sold them to me, someone on the forum, told me I would probably like them based on some of my still photography he saw...hard frontal beauty lighting thing.

 

I like to imagine they where named "Supa" inspired by Geoffrey Unsworth and the original 1978 Super Man, (regardless of filters, there is a scene early on with Lois and Clark on the sidewalk with brilliant late afternoon shafts of light that is so beautiful, I'm imagining large carbon arcs, Mole Skypans or something?? ) But for sure a similar filter was used on Millennium, 1989 with Cheryl Ladd that I randomly saw on Netflix... I was recognizing filter nuances similar to my Supa Frosts. And that 70's scene from "In the Mood for Love" has a similar look but perhaps that was a stronger fog filter?) Leaving behind my random conjectures LOL I also used an:

 

80mm lens (Hasselblad medium format w/ PL adapter).

And it was lit with a 2k fresnel up and behind the camera with a violet gel covering the wide open barn doors.

ND on camera down to F4.

 

Here is the full test, it starts off clean then progressively stronger filters.

 

 

W.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

The plastic Wilson SupaFrosts more or less were copied to make more durable glass Tiffen ProMists, though they aren't exactly the same -- I think SupaFrosts to me look a bit like a ProMist combined with a Soft-FX. But the designs are similar. SupaFrosts were used well on "The Natural".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Site Sponsor

We have no problem running Tri-X as negative, we can run it in the same Allen machine we ran the now infamous Louis CK film which we developed 200,000ft of 35mm 5222 in.

 

I personally used Tri-X for a shot in a film I made which was a mix of 7222 and 7231 with some slow motion shots with Tri-X double perf and I edited on a steenbeck and cut my negaitve and made a print. I liked the look of Tri-X as negative allot and it cut well with the Plus-X 7231 negative stock.

 

Le me know if you want to do some tests.

 

And again we have TWO B&W film processors, one for Reversal and one for Negative/Print so actually a total of three developer possibilities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Robert:

 

Do you also advise exposing Tri-X at ei 100/125 if developed as a negative? Is the latitude really still as limited as reversal? Can't one develop to whatever gamma they want and thus avoid that problem?

 

I am actually living in Los Angeles now and it looks like we will shoot in Nova Scotia in April and May. Nonetheless, I am looking for a good lab that might be open to changes to the film developer, and if a suitable lab cannot be found in Canada, perhaps there is enough of a cost savings in sending to Rhode Island instead of Burbank.

 

If you write me at jarin@jarinblaschke.com, I can tell you what I have in mind. I am in the early stages of testing candidate developers by hand, keeping in mind a replenishment scheme, the need for constant agitation and the eventual soup of 700 liters at one time.

 

-J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi - an update:

 

For the test I shot 7222, exposed at 160 and developed "normal" and 7266, warned about high-contrast, exposed at 80 and developed "-1."

 

The Tri-X results were superior in sharpness, highlight tonality and grain. Contrast was actually normal and comparable between the two. I saw the results both as prints and in a 4k DI suite at Fotokem. It's unclear how much the results were improved by the stock being Tri-X, and how much from the more moderate development. The "normal" developed double X footage showed signs of overdevelopment (especially poor highlight separation) that the 35mm Double-X did not.

 

I can share the results after the resulting film is finished!

 

Jarin

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
31 minutes ago, Michael Carter said:

Tri-X neg is made to be contact printed onto film. That gets rid of the mush. I have done it onto sound film. 

Do you mean you contact printed Tri-X as a negative onto positive sound stock or Tri-X as reversal onto sound negative stock?

And what sound film did you print onto?

Thanks,

Gautam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
  • Premium Member
3 minutes ago, Nick Tash said:

So, this was for The Lighthouse then? Very interesting to think of that movie almost having been shot on Tri-X 16mm. 

No, Lighthouse was shot on 35mm black and white negative. 

A good reversal feature to watch would be PI, from I think 1998 ish? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I know. What I was saying was that it was interesting that they were CONSIDERING shooting on 16mm Tri-X. Just interesting how that would have affected the look of the movie had they gone that route.

And yeah, there hasn't really been a good Tri-X since Pi, you're right. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...