Jarin Blaschke

I would love to see a Rodinal-developed moving image.

Indeed, the reason was primarily for altered skin tones/texture and exterior atmosphere/sky effects.

I used the filter for every shot in the film, save for one mermaid close-up and one shot toward the end of the film. The short pass filter is very efficient for what it does. It is a 1-stop loss filter that gave test results not far from a 47B blue filter, which has a 4-stop loss (in tungsten light). It gave noticeably stronger results than a 58 green filter which is a 3 stop loss. It went in the matte box and we were done. And the set didn’t have to be a weird strong cyan color. Additionally, theres no way I could have gelled that phenomenally hot halogen bulb in the table lantern. White LEDs didn’t come close to requisite light levels in a small lantern, let alone a green\blue diode version. I also didn’t have to gel with safe distance and manage the gel kick-back and peripheral white light leak of six 9kHMIs bouncing outside the windows for day interior scenes.

Aside from saving money, a big part of the appeal of home processing would be the option of NOT having to use a typical solvent-type developer (high-sulfite D96, D76 and others) and open it up to experiment with staining developers (pyrogallol or catechol), acutance developers (Rodinal & co.), etc. Does the tank develop evenly or is there flicker in the moving image? -Jarin

I’m pretty sure it has an anti-halation back later (like still films) but no rem-jet. But David probably knows definitively. Thanks for your compliments, David. Did you see it here at Camerimage or in a normal theater? I pulled the whole film 1/2 stop except for the gloomiest, flattest exteriors and never opened up beyond 2.8, so that also helps a tiny bit with sharpness.

That’s where we did it, yes. j

I didn't test Tri-X as a negative versus Tri-X as a positive. All I know is that Tri-X as a negative (with -1 processing) compared superlatively versus Double-X processed as a negative normally. Latitude was similar, with superior grain, tonality and sharpness. -Jarin

Actually Kodak does have a cleaner stock available: TriX. Process as a negative, rating at 100 and pull one stop. It’s far superior to Double X, which I find intolerable in 16mm. I’ve tested side by side. Kodak also stated that they can special order TriX for 35mm, but the per foot charge is very high. I don’t know what the minimum would be. Tmax emulsions don’t have enough flexibility and forgiveness for motion picture use. If a mom and pop lab overdevelops TMax 100, the highlights are fried. It is also more finicky for exposure. Jarin

The tech sheets seem to indicate that 250D is grainier, but also sharper than 50D. It also looks to have more of a toe in its characteristic curve, so more forgiving to underexposure while having less shadow separation. I sure miss the XTR Prod. What a handheld camera. Jarin

Stand development is very trendy these days but it distorts the curve in adverse ways. Personally I only use it for high contrast night photography with a lot of low values and a few extreme highlights in frame that need taming. Otherwise it can look a bit dead. I had great success having Fotokem process 7266 as a negative. I rated it at 100 and had them process -1. Superior to "normal" 7222 in every way.

We shot "The Lighthouse" on 5222 and its an old, soft, finicky stock. Whether it's worth a 4k scan depends on how you treat the film and the lenses you use. I mostly processed it at "-1/2" with 2/3 stops extra exposure. This sharpens it up and increases dynamic range. Even then, a gray tone would already be black at -4 1/2 stops incident. Highlights fare much better, but still, latitude is still not great. Neither is resolution - I'm not so sure 5222 achieves 4k when I see the our untouched 4k scanned footage next to the 2k VFX footage. However, HDR might be worth it. Personally, I like more contrast in black and white and more subtlety in color. 5222 did have one superior trait. From my tests 5222 has much more "local" or "micro" contrast and separation than either 35mm color film or Alexa footage. Even while being softer and grainier. In that way, it is irreplaceable. Jarin ps: 7222 is much too soft. I wouldn't shoot it. In 16mm I'd shoot TriX instead and process as a negative. A very pretty stock. If only they made it in 35mm! Just pull a stop to get the right contrast!

This is a rather nice music video. Thanks for sharing. Although the grain is smoother than it would be in a "normal" regime, a lot of highlight information and separation is lost by exposing so high on the h+d curve, despite the pull process. In other words, some parts of the frame (sunlit backgrounds) are exposed beyond return. Heavy pull and push processes distort the curve progression in general, affecting the tonal separation adversely. Nonetheless, creatively, this was interesting to see. Jarin

Dunno. We used a an early generation Alexa with a Panavision-modified 1960's Super Baltar at T/2. It turned out alright. The critical key is triple-wick candles and hiding additional tea-lights in the right places. Jarin

Thanks guys. I need to convince A24 to make prints! What's interesting about exposing and grading black and white is that you make day scenes brighter than you normally would, since it's your only tool to strengthen transitions between night and day. This is not fully portrayed by this first trailer, which has a very high number of shots from our "dusk" and "dawn" scenes. This film was much different than the Witch. This time, the night scenes around the "lantern" that look so dark in the movie were nearly blinding on set. It also has a proper black and often good highlights, unlike the low-con look of "The Witch." We may continue to stay rich in contrast for our next color film as well. Shall see. Harris Savides had such a profound influence on so many of us cinematographers. For me, the soft look and unending highlight scale stuck for a long time. Jarin

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: