Wiliam Cardoza Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 25, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted January 25, 2018 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 More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted January 25, 2018 Site Sponsor Share Posted January 25, 2018 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 More sharing options...
Jarin Blaschke Posted January 26, 2018 Author Share Posted January 26, 2018 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 More sharing options...
Site Sponsor Robert Houllahan Posted January 26, 2018 Site Sponsor Share Posted January 26, 2018 Tri-X as negative retains the latitude of Tri-X as Reversal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Carter Posted January 27, 2018 Share Posted January 27, 2018 (edited) https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1029560100518112&set=pb.100003923954280.-2207520000.1517022043.&type=3&theater Tri-X 7266 reversed 16mm stand developed in HC-110 Edited January 27, 2018 by Michael Carter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarin Blaschke Posted February 18, 2018 Author Share Posted February 18, 2018 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 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted February 19, 2018 Premium Member Share Posted February 19, 2018 Would love to see some comparison frames! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Valluri Posted September 6, 2021 Share Posted September 6, 2021 Hi @Jarin Blaschke, would it be possible to share the results of these tests? Thanks, Gautam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Carter Posted September 6, 2021 Share Posted September 6, 2021 Tri-X neg is made to be contact printed onto film. That gets rid of the mush. I have done it onto sound film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gautam Valluri Posted September 6, 2021 Share Posted September 6, 2021 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 More sharing options...
Michael Carter Posted September 6, 2021 Share Posted September 6, 2021 Did both, by accident, internegative, 3378 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tash Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 So, this was for The Lighthouse then? Very interesting to think of that movie almost having been shot on Tri-X 16mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted November 23, 2022 Premium Member Share Posted November 23, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Nick Tash Posted November 23, 2022 Share Posted November 23, 2022 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now