Jarin Blaschke

What I saw as far as greater tonal separation with 5222, held up as a 4k scan and as a traditional print. With the old 5231, the differences would have been even greater still. For the digital version, highlight, mid tone and shadow values were matched between the two films, and still, local contrast was much better separated with 5222. Jarin

I shot a test with these films10 days ago, and found the opposite: In my 4k scanned findings, 5219 has much less grain than 5222. Also, 5222 had clearly more contrast. 5219 showed more grain on the print, but tonal separation was still weaker. Jarin

Also, I just discovered that Tri-X is a superior negative film. Rate at 80 or 100 and "pull 1". From what I can tell from a simple, 3 shot test, sharpness, grain and tonality all surpass double-X. J

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

If you really want to try something different, try using Rodinal as a developer. Sharper but much grainier, especially in Super8.

A classic, much loved slide film that commercial photographers kept alive until the mid 2000s was EPP. EPN was an even older film that stuck around. The colors of both are much more natural/accurate and the look less slick than Velvia or Provia. Kodak and Fuji had 400 speed slide film, too. EPJ was a 320-speed tungsten stock. PRN was a great Kodak negative stock. It was the latest until the Portra films arrived. J

Well perhaps this isn't the place for this (Maybe Photrio forums is more like it), but yes, buying expired film on eBay will do it. To me, buying a mid-speed film that expired in the 1st half of the 90s might be the best balance between seeing a noticeable difference and not too dangerous. I've shot and processed 126 film that expired in the 80s and there was definitely a lot of speed loss. Very thin negatives. The older the film, the slower you need to rate the film. This is the wild card method, as you don't know how the film was stored all these years and the results are completely unpredictable. High speed film goes off faster of course and is more risky. However, grain structure of vintage films is much different than those of today and can't be replicated. Just make sure that it's still a C41 film and not made for some earlier process. You could go thew harris Savides route, take a contemporary film and bake it at a low temperature, but you'd have to test it a bit to find the working ISO speed and baking time/temperature that gives you the look you want. Another technique might be to slightly underexpose a fast film while shooting through a colored filter. When printed back to normal, it will induce color crossover. For example, If you want red shadows and cyan highlights, shoot through a somewhat strong cyan filter. If the shadows are thin, they will exhibit red when you correct back halfway. Alternatively, Adox makes a film called Color Implosion that is designed to look "old" or "vintage" with, according to them, color layers that are "collapsed." Do a search on this film. It may be too "70s" for you, or it may be perfect. J

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

Dom: Thanks for all that info! I will have to ask Panavision about high speed options. From "The Witch" I know they have a later, Super Baltar 1.4 35mm lens. Our film takes place in the late 19th Century, so no lenses will be a literal match. However I've seen rehoused early Baltars and Cooke series 1s that I like a lot for this film. The focus fall off is fast, the highlights glow in a lovely way and there is a petzval quality to the bokeh toward the corners, including some nice vignetting (at least to me)in 1.33 and 1.2 aspect ratios. The Panchros go at least as wide as 25mm, and the Baltars (pre-"super") go as wide as 18mm, and as long as 152mm. They are all T/2 to 2.5, at least after they've been rehoused. Apparently they are "inverted telephoto" designs up to 35mm, and double gauss for the rest. I will probably use Cooke series 3 for most 25mm shots, because the earlier lenses cross over from "personality" to real dogs. There is even noticeable quality difference between 35mm and 32mm. I've heard the Baltars are single coated, and the Cooke S1s must be as well, because they have a little more contrast than the Baltars. Soon I will be looking at a triplet at Panavision. I will have to ask about Tessars, as they are very lovely portrait lenses in large format (5x7" and 8x10"). J

Spherical aberration, barrel distortion, even ghosting, sure, but I'm baffled how breathing could be a desirable trait in a lens! Nonetheless, vintage zooms will do this like crazy. Certainly every 60s or 70s zoom I've ever received from Panavision, spherical or anamorphic.

Thanks. I've come to know vintage lenses pretty well, but am not nearly as familiar in the realm of diffusion. I don't think we have much need for it in our film, save for a few special shots. Could you venture to guess what kind of diffusion is used in the opening of Institut Benjamenta, particularly the bucket pouring at 3:32 and the close up at 3:57? I'm not a diffusion guy, but that lighting and diffuse glimmer/shimmer off the water is really transportive:

I just wondered if it was Zeiss, since it was a German movie. Probably around the time of Series 0 Panchros and before the (original) Baltars? M is one point of reference for a film I'm about to start. The optical effects are quite beautiful in the film, and for homework I just wonder what lenses made the images, although now it seems Sasaki may deliver something very very close for us. I'm excited. What is that Russian film? It looks like another 1.2:1 aspect ratio movie (Like M) from before standardized sound. Looks like that Tessar is from a view camera. A 4.5 aperture is a pretty fast lens for a 21cm lens, but Tessars have a reputation for being great portrait lenses (In the large format world). J

Hello: Can anyone identify the lenses used, or likely used for the production of Fritz Lang's "M" (1931)? Presumably something from Zeiss? Old Tessars? Any film technology historians out there? David? Thanks! -Jarin

Well, my interest is in trying Tri-X as a negative before reaching for a somewhat obscure film. We will need 350,000 feet, which would be another issue. No anecdotes of TriX as a negative, eh?

I'm about to test this in a couple weeks, but in the meantime, does anyone have any anecdotes (or images!) regarding how, when processed as a negative, Tri-X 7266 looks compared to Double-X? I'm desperately grasping for a way to shoot true black and white film, while avoiding the mush that is Double-X. Thanks. -Jarin