Why is there not a low contrast positive stock?

[Karim D. Ghantous]

Right now, there are two choices: negative film with high DR and low contrast; and positive film with low DR and high contrast. Why is there not a third option: a positive film with low contrast, and DR just as high as with negative film?

You might wonder what the point would be with such a stock. Well, I am not totally sure myself. But imagine having a positive stock, which does not need to have an orange mask, that would be much easier to scan. Transparency film is its own reference - at least in theory. The other bonus is that positive film is more human readable than negative film is.

[David Mullen ASC]

There was a low-con print stock for telecine transfers but Kodak discontinued it. It was not as low-con as intermediate dupe stock though -- plus it was usually made on continuous contact printers like regular prints were, not a step printer.

Are you asking for Kodak to make their intermediate dupe stock used for color IP/INs but without the orange color mask?

I don't know the economics of that -- Kodak would probably ask why you weren't scanning from the original negative, which is how the majority of digital intermediates are done.  Plus those motion picture scanners are designed to deal with the color mask. So then who exactly is having trouble scanning their negatives?

Re-reading your post, now I see that you are not asking for a low-contrast positive printing or duplicating stock, you are asking why there isn't a low-contrast camera reversal stock.

I don't know why - Kodak did make some lowered-contrast reversal films in the past like ECO but I don't think they had the DR of negative film. Perhaps the whole process of reversal increases contrast (film is inherently a "negative" process, exposure creates density, so to create a camera original that is positive, a reversal step is needed). Anyway, it seems easier to make negative films with a wide DR.

As for the orange color mask, Kodak did make a color negative movie film called Primetime 640T that dropped the color mask, the idea being that it was for telecine transfer only, not for making prints. It was sold as a "TV show" stock but it didn't catch on, partly because after decades of colorists working around the color mask, they weren't used to a stock that didn't have it so some places weren't recalibrating their telecines for the new stock, and Kodak also made the mistake of selling the concept to producers as a cheaper "TV" stock rather than enlisting cinematographers as to the benefits. Plus it was 640 ASA and a bit grainy. So it didn't sell well-enough to keep making it.

I suspect a color reversal with the low contrast of negative film would also fall into the category of a niche within film, which has become a niche market itself. I doubt Kodak wants to spend the money on R&D to create such a stock but who knows.

[Bruce Greene]

This has got me thinking that optical/chemical printing of both motion picture and still films has become a very niche workflow.

Maybe it’s time to retire the orange mask?

For still photographers it would make scanning negatives with a camera much easier and perhaps lead to increased film sales?

Just thinking out loud …

[Doug Palmer]

ECO in 16mm was a lovely emulsion, if slow at about 16 iso I believe. It's a pity there's no low contrast reversal film now, not even for still photography.  To try and get an equivalent with Ektachrome,  I always flash the film.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Doug Palmer
add words

[Karim D. Ghantous]

I just had a thought. The closest we have to this is cross-processed C-41. In fact, I'd like to try an experiment: shoot C41 with a colour chart, cross process in E6, then correct the colour. Could be interesting?

[David Mullen ASC]

You’d still have an orange color mask.

[Doug Palmer]

On 12/9/2021 at 8:27 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

You’d still have an orange color mask.

It's an interesting idea though. I wonder if there'd be some way to diminish the orange mask.