Brian Pritchard

Film and Photo also process ECN2 Brian

That is good news, I am glad it worked. There is always a worry about using concentrated Sulphuric Acid. Brian

I don't know of any formula for using Sodium Bisulphate in bleaches.; I have the feeling that it would not work. You could check very easily by making up a solution and trying to bleach some processed B/W film. If the image disappears try redeveloping in some developer such as ID11. Brian

It would help if I gave an email address! brian (at) brianpritchard {dot} com Brian

If anyone is interested I have a copy of the data sheet for Kodak 2415. Email me if you want a copy. Brian

The basic stages in reversal processing are as follows: Ist Developer - produces a negative image Bleach - removes the negative image Re-exposure - fogs the residual positive image 2nd Developer - produces the positive image Fixer removes any residual silver halide. Obviously I have left out steps such as washes and rinses and clearing bath If you are left with a negative image it sounds if your bleach has not worked. Insufficient re-exposure would not give a negative image you would probably get a weak (thin) positive image. Brian

According to the Kodak data sheets the safelight needs to be at 590 nM; looking at the safelight datasheet I would say that the #13 is a darker version of the #8. Can I suggest that you use a brighter bulb and do the coin test to check on the fogging? Brian

I have made some small amendments to my 35mm Film Identification PDF and also added a similar tool for 16mm. you will find them here :http://www.brianpritchard.com/IMPF.htm if you find any errors or have any suggestions then please email me. Thanks Brian

It really depends on how it was X-rayed. Freight X-rays can be more powerful than the normal passenger scanners. I had still film x-rayed 8 times in China without any visible effect. If you are happy to pay for the processing I would take the chance and have it developed. At the worst you will see what the effect of the x-rays are, at the best you I'll have your test. Brian

I understand that Haghefilm are about to reopen. This was posted on Facebook. Good news for Dutch film industry today: Dutch film lab Cineco resumes as Haghefilm Digitaal Dutch film lab Cineco and daughter company Haghefilm Conservation, which were declared bankrupt on October 23, will get a relaunch and will resume their activities under the new name Haghefilm Digitaal BV. The restart prevents the disappearing of the knowledge of 35 mm film development and preservation from the Netherlands and makes sure film producers do not have to go abroad for the technical post-production of their films. The relaunch of Cineco BV and Haghefilm BV is made possible by Erik Vrolijk and Wibo de Groot, who have over 20 years of international experience in the field of film laboratories, dealing with analogue as well as digital film. The two entrepeneurs have taken the lead in saving the only film lab in the Netherlands in order to keep the knowledge of film preservation within the country and to safeguard the conservation of cultural heritage. Managing Director of Hagefilm Digitaal is Erik Vrolijk. Brian

This is a message posted on the AMIA-L list serv: I talked to Peter Limburg (CEO Cineco) last night on the phone. Both companies are bankrupt. Their employees are at home as of yesterday, the companies entrance door was sealed of today. It's very sad, but it's over.. Jean-Pierre Sens SuperSens Amsterdam The Netherlands Brian

It is not all bad news. For those who were fans of Ilab they will be interested that the equipment has been bought and a new lab set-up in Park Royal, London. The lab is called Idailies and their web site is here: http://www.i-dailies.com/ Their phone number is +44 208 9939794. You can talk to Nigel Horn. Brian

I understand that Haghefilm/Cineco in The Netherlands has closed and gone into administration. Brian

I have to admit I have never heard of Diazo being used in Motion Picture, doesn't mean it it didn't happen. Viscalar film was fairly regularly used to make Academy leaders, as Charles says, visually there doesn't appear to be any density to the image but when printed or projected the density appears. Brian

I know some of you are interested in the world of film archiving so I thought you might be interested in an aid I have devised to assist in the identification of 35mm film. It is a PDF file with hyperlinks to assist you in the identification process. I do not guarantee that it is complete or 100% accurate but it is designed to help those who have just started in this field or are perhaps less technical. I am happy to receive comments or corrections. You will find the file here where you can download it: www.brianpritchard.com/IMPF.html You also might find this of interest: www.brianpritchard.com/Eastman_Duplicating_Film_1927.htm It is a booklet produced in 1927 by the Eastman Kodak Company when they first introduced duplicating stocks. It is also when D76 was first introduced. Brian

If any of you are interested in the work my friend David Cleveland and I did on restoring the Lee-Turner film you will find more details on my website: http://www.brianpritchard.com/Lee_Turner_Project.htm Despite some reports which say it was a digital restoration, the first step was to copy the entire frame including perfs onto 35mm Kodak F G Dupe Pos 2366 or Dupe Neg 2234. We had original negs and prints. We used Smoke to combine the r, g and b images to give the colour images after the 35mm film had been scanned at 4K on an Arriscan. No other work was done on the digital images. Because the film was 1 1/2" wide with round perfs and there were only about 5000 frames, I built a gate and we placed the frames by hand copying each one on a Neilsen Hordell optical printer. The most amazing thing was that we did not have to adjust the exposure for the r, g and b frames. Mr Turner was obviously a very skilled photographer. Most books say that the film was shot at 48fps but this is not so, the films look right when projected at 16fps. Brian

You can see the footage on YouTube here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XekGVQM33ao Brian

According to the Eastman Kodak Book 'Motion Picture Laboratory Practice and Characteristics of Eastman Motion Picture Films' published in 1936 Eastman Positive Motion Picture Film Type 1301 when developed in D16 to a gamma of 2.4, the maximum density was approximately 3.6. Brian

It sounds to me as if the anti-halation undercoat has not been bleached away before the second developer. This is made from colloidal silver and is designed to be bleached away when you bleach the negative image. Unfortunately if this is the problem you cannot remove it without losing the image. This anti-halation coating prevents you using the film stock as a negative. Brian

Just as a matter of interest here is a picture of the Fuji date code found on colour positive stock. It shows a date of: October - December 1980, the other quarters would be JM, AJ, JS standing for Jan-Mar, Apr-June and July-Sept. It is worth noting that manufacturers have stopped putting edge print on some stocks, those that are used with digital tracks as the lettering interfere with the SDDS track which is printed on the edge of the film outside the perfs. Brian

Film and Phot in Acton can process 16mm and Super 8, E6 and ECN2 Brian

Thanks for the replies, I personally think that film will be around for quite a while yet. The problem is convincing people to continue to invest in film and labs. I am working with an organisation who are saying 'why do we need to keep film processing when we can do everything we want with scanners?' The replies here worry me in that nobody has yet made a point that we need to keep film otherwise we cannot.... James does make the point that we would lose process manipulation. So what else is there? I think that the first process to eventually disappear will be colour print, there are less and less cinemas with film projectors so why will it be necessary to make prints? Well if like me you have seen a Royal Film Premiere at the Odeon Leicester Square with a brand new 70mm print from a 65mm negative you would see why we need film especially when compared to the DVD like quality at local cinemas. Unfortunately that is not a reason to convince the money men. I am sure there will be bespoke labs around for sometime yet even if they are only catering to 'artist' film makers. Brian

Thanks, I know about the Kinetta but it doesn't answer the question - are there any films or processes that a scanner couldn't handle? What would we never see again if there were no film/labs? Brian

With the rapid disappearance of film labs and the problems at Kodak I am interested to know what your thoughts are with regard to the possible disappearance of film. If film and labs were to completely disappear tomorrow what would be the consequences? Is there any process or type of film that would no longer be available for access? For example some very early films were shot on non-standard widths and with non-standard perforations. With small quantities of film it would not be economic to build a scanner to digitise such films; the most economic way is to photographically copy them onto 35mm film and then digitise. You could copy each frame with a digital camera but it would involve a lot of manipulation to end up with an acceptable result. So what would we lose if film died? Brian

The other trick I discovered many years ago in still photography is to put glass marbles into the bottle to keep the bottle full and exclude the air. I still use this technique for my B/W developers. Brian