Richard Tuohy

Hi Andy, the reason Kodak have given for stopping Ektachrome but not Tri-x isn't due to popularity. Kodak are aware that they sold very much more ektachrome than tri-x. But they have stated that the reason for stopping Ektachrome was the difficulty in manufacturing it given the volumes sold. I added up how many panchromatic black and white MP films I could think of that Kodak are still selling and it comes to (at least) 6 including Tri-x. Perhaps this diversity of at least partly similar products makes it easier to manufacture any one of them. Perhaps. But I too suspect that Tri-x will nonetheless be next. cheers, richard

Slitting velvia from un-perforated 35 into super 8 then perforating it and loading it in super 8 cartridges, while an onerous task, is nothing compared with making a stock like velvia in the first place. We can be thankful for the idea of Cinevia, but we are beholden to Fuji for it.

Hi Tom, all super 8 cameras have built in 85 filters. Some people prefer to use an external filter instead of the camera's internal filter. The elmo you have is very likely to have a filter notch detector. I say this because most cameras that don't have a filter notch detector are cameras that have a 'sun/bulb' filter switch externally on the camera. Instead of a switch, your elmo has a 'movie light screw'. Inserting the screw is how the filter is removed. As I say, usually such cameras will also have a filter notch pin. This would remove the filter when a daylight cartridge is inserted, but not when a tungsten cartridge is inserted. Now, the 200T cartridge, even though it is a tungsten film, has no filter notch cut into it. Kodak consider these professional films. As such, they assume you will want to use an external filter. So, you will need to cut a filter notch in the cartridge. Google that. But you will also need to confirm whether the camera does have a filter notch detector. If you are unsure, you can email me an image of the interior of the film chamber. As for the asa your camera will identify this film as being, it is very likely it will identify the film as 100 daylight (or 160 tungsten if you cut in a notch). hope that helps, richard

Hi Gautam, from a thread in another forum, I read that there is a photography store called 'madanjee' on Chandni Chowk where you can buy quite a bit of black and white chemistry. They may not have D19, but you can use a paper print developer if you want to do the reversal process. Of course, you can also make developer from Coffee,vitamin C poweder and 'washing soda'. That works very well. The bigger issue is fixer. It is possible to use normal table salt, but apparently you have to use an awful lot and the film takes about 24 hours to fix properly. So the main thing to try to get is a black and white fixer. To process reversal, you will need to find a scientific chemicals supplier. Major cities usually have one of these. You will need to buy Potassium Dichromate and Sulphuric Acid to make the bleach, and Sodium Sulphide to make the so called clearing bath. The reversal process really isn't much harder than the negative process (which is just developer then fixer). The thing is you only need to do one stage - the first development stage - in the dark. You can do the rest in full light. So using a bucket to develop spaghetti style isn't too hard. A lomo tank is of course the best way to go. Personally I don't recommend the Morse rewind tanks. Some people like them, but I don't. You can make yourself a simple flat frame and wind the film around it then lay it in an open tray of developer. That works very well. Hard to do long lengths that way, but you can always cut a 100' length of film into say 30 foot lengths and process this way, the splice back together after processing. For splicing, the cheapest thing to do is to get an old kodak universal tape splicer from ebay. These can be very cheap. They use little tabs which are also cheap to buy. Yes, I know both Nicholas and Ben. Nicholas is heavily involved in the filmlabs.org forum of which my lab is also a member. I believe this forum is open for individuals to join as well. Looking at Ben's films, he has often processed spaghetti style in a bucket. I think mostly just in negative, not reversal. hope that is of some help. send me an email at richard@nanolab.com.au if you want to ask specific questions. cheers, richard

Hello Gautam, yes, it is best if you can buy a LOMO tank on ebay. There are three models. The most appropriate is the rare 100' lomo. These are expensive. The second best option is to get a 50' lomo. These are the ones that can process two 50' loads at a time. Quite useful. There is also the 10 meter/ 30 foot tank. This tank is easy to identify as it has two black hoses instead of just one. Don't buy one of these. You can also process just in a bucket, but it is pretty messy, and the results very much look like they were done in a bucket. Can be a nice thing, but not necessarilly what you are after. If you are processing this film yourself, you can in fact use Kodak D19 as the developer and mix up the Kodak R9 bleach formula. I can advise on that. Using D19 and R9 bleach would be cheaper than using the foma kit. But if you are going down that path, you might also consider using Orwo film rather than Foma. A little easier to process as it doesn't have the silver anti-halation layer that foma does. Or you could use Tri-X. Use whichever of those stocks is the cheapest for you to get. Look into finding a supplier of photographic chemicals. These could be packets of chemicals (kodak D19 comes in a packet) or raw chemicals. Using raw chemicals is the cheapest way to go. feel free to ask me questions about home processing if you want to pursue this. cheers, richard

As far as I know, there are two things that are different with the Foma R100. One is it is a 'silver rich' emulsion, which means it has a lot of silver halide crystals that aren't photographically active. They are basically redundent bits of silver halide. And the other is the silver anti halation layer. I don't believe the silver rich aspect would make the difference with reversal processing in different chemistry. Certainly it is the silver anti halation layer that means that fomapan can't be processed as a neg because it has to have a bleach stage in the processing to remove that layer. I strongly suspect that as you say it is the anti halation layer that is to blame for the processing issue that it has with the kodak reversal process chemistry.

I am afraid it certainly can't be processed by all labs that process black and white tri-x. Processing this stock in the normal Kodak chemistry can result in very wierd effects. They can be a nice 'solarized' pos/neg looking effect, but not what you are after if you want straight processing. Be very careful when asking a lab whether they can process this. Some may assume they can but never have. Some may have processed it and simply been lucky (when the Kodak chemistry hasn't processed many other films it can often process Foma o.k.). This stock is really suited to home processing using the FOMA kit chemistry.

Hmmm, and what a silly film it turned out to be. Such a disapointment.

Thanks for the link to the article. So they did at least three separate finishes to the film; They made an inter pos of the 35 neg on 35, then blew that interpos up to a 65 dupe neg. This was then cut with the 65 camera neg to make a 65mm master negative. From this they made an inter positive and also some 70mm prints (note, not from an inter negative struck from the inter positive, but from the master neg If I read the article correctly). They made a deduction of the 65mm inter pos to make a 35mm inter neg, then cut this neg with the original 35mm camera neg to make a 35mm master neg. A 35mm interpos was made and then either interneg and prints or prints from the master 35mm neg. They made a DI from the original camera neg - 8k for the 65 and 6k for the 35. This was for the digital exhibition of the film. Amazing.

So a 70mm print, perhaps THE 70mm print, of 'The Master' is showing in Melbourne next week. For one thing, I assume it is a 70mm print without magnetic sound. I assume the availability of the traditional mag-striped 70mm print material stopped long ago. Anyway, according to the article in the Kodak magazine, the makers of the film had initially intended to shoot about 20% of the film on 65mm, but after seeing results, decided to shoot the majority of the film on 65. In the same article it stresses that the film used an entirely photochemical workflow. If that is so, I have a few questions. Firstly, if 15% of the film was shot on 35mm, and the print is 70mm, then there must have been an optical blow up stage for those 35mm sections. That would mean (would it not?) making a 35 or 65mm interpositive, then a 65mm dupe-negative of those sections shot on 35mm. These internegatives would then be cut with the 65mm camera negatives to make the master negative. Then, either the few 70mm prints would be struck directly from that mostly camera original and spliced master negative, or else they would have had to make an interpositive and then dupe-negatives of the entire film. This would mean that the 65mm material seen in the cinema on a 70mm print would be 4th generation (which I guess was the normal thing for a modern 'traditional' entirely photo-chemically finished film) and the 35mm sections would be 6th generation. Secondly, surely the fact is that the majority of cinemas that screen this film will do so digitally. So would that mean that the transfer was made from the cut 65mm negative, or from the negative before it was cut? For some time when we have seen 35mm prints in the cinema we are nontheless seeing something that has gone through a digital stage. While it must be a task to make the 35mm print version of a digitised film look the same as the digital cinema print version, it must be harder still to make a digital cinema print version of a film look the same as an entirely photochemical version of the film. To be true to the spirit of the entirely photochemical conception of the film, the digital tweeking of the scan would have to be limited to attempting to approximate the photochemical version, rather than exploiting the possibilities of the digital stage. The digital could only be 'lesser' than the photochemical. I guess my musings are about the problem having a digital and a film version of a movie where the film version isn't 'just' a 'print out' from a DI but rather an entirely photochemical affair. Yes, in the past, this was the way things were done - a finished photochemical print and a telecine for the small screen. It seems a different set of problems now however.

Hi J Artent, No super 8 camera will read a cartridge as 200 asa as there is no 200 asa as there is no 200 asa notch specification for super 8 cartridges - either for daylight or for tungsten. Super 8 cameras will either read Tri-X as either 160 or 250 asa, depending on how sophisticated the notch reading system is. This camera has a full set of speed detectors, so it will rate Tri-x as 250 asa. Hope that helps, richard

Hi Simon, with the exception of Beaulieu cameras (and perhaps the Leicina special) Super 8 cameras don't have ground glass in the viewfinder system. Instead they rely on a so-called 'areal-image'. To focus an areal-image eyepiece diopter involves a different proceedure from focusing a ground-glass viewfinder diopter. To focus the former, put the lens on maximum zoom and focus on maximum (infinity). Now look at an object a long way away (say over 20 meters) and focus the diopter. I don't know what kind of focusing aid this model has. I am guessing that what you have been calling the ground glass is a focusing aid vissible in the centre of the viewfinder area. It may well be a microprism style focusing aid. If so, get the microprism image of the object you are looking at as sharp as you can. As for the meter, the dial probably has 2 click positions, in addition to an area where you can put the dial in various non-clicking positions. The various non-clicking positions will be the 'manual' positions. You should see the indicator in the viewfinder change as you move through this zone of the dial. One of the 'click' positions will be auto. if this is working, you should see the exposure indicator in the viewfinder respond to different amounts of light when in this position. The last click position could well be just 'off'. hope that helps, richard

This is a stunningly comprehensive document! Well done. quite the resource.

Absolutely. You need A, B and Starter. rt

HI Paul, I suspect you don't have any developer in there. Are you aware that to mix up ECN kit developer you need to use 3 products from kodak? You need the 5 litre ECN starter, and you need the 20 litre ECN replenisher part A and the 2 x 5 litre ECN replenisher part B. The 'developer' is really a combination of part A and part B. The starter is just to 'condition' the developer to make it the same as used developer that has been replenished if you get what I mean. You don't mention that you have used all three of these kit elements, so I suspect that is the source of your problem. cheers, richard

Nice if you are right about that, but I think that is wishful thinking.

Well, with a super 8 camera you have to take into account two factors: the size of the opening of the shutter, and the amount of light lost by the viewfinder system. Your 60th of a second may be correct for 24fps with a 150 degree shutter (I haven't done the maths, but it sounds correct) however you haven't taken the light loss of the viewfinder system into account. You need to do this because super 8 cameras (with the exception of Beaulieu models, and the Licina Special (I believe)) don't have a mirrored shutter. If you consider an SLR (or DSLR) for the moment, these cameras do have mirrors to send the incoming light to the viewfinder. This mirror gets out of the way when you take a photograph. That is why the viewfinder 'blinks' when you take a shot. With most motion picture cameras, there is a mirror on the shutter. This way, every time the shutter is closed, the incoming light is sent to the viewfinder. When the shutter is open, no light gets to the viewfinder. Thus, when you film with most motion picutre cameras, the viewfinder also 'blinks' at the frame rate you are shooting at. With a super 8 camera, instead of a mirrored shutter, they use a beam splitter that sends some of the light to the viewfinder, and some to the film. There is no blinking. Because the incoming light is split, you need to take this light loss into account. how much is lost? You have to do a test to find out. So, I recommend that you do a carefully bracketed exposure test as your first roll of ektachrome. When you get this back, you will be able to watch it on a projector to determine which setting gave the best result. Personally, I prefer to pretend that the camera has a 180 degree shutter and make the exposure corrections required with the asa (rather than modifying the effective shutter speed). This way, if you determine that you need to correct the exposure by 1 stop in total to compensate for the shutter opening and the viewfinder, all you do is halve the asa of the film you are using, then set the light meter to the frame rate you are shooting at. This way you can use the FPS setting on the light meter instead of having to use the shutter speed setting. Or if your meter doesn't have an FPS setting, then you simply have to double the fps rate to find the shutter speed setting you should use. No calculations required in the field. Of course, the camera's internal light meter if working takes these factors into account. cheers, richard

Yes, the Bolex and the K3 work the same as the Filmo in regards to setting the speed. It is a continuous dial. You could work out roughly where 25 is if you wanted. With a bolex, you can also get a 25fps electric motor.

Another thought: you say you doubled the times, but what times did you double? The times specified by Foma for tank processing ... or do they also specify times for rewind processing? Rewind processing takes a lot longer.

I agree with Simon's suggestion: did you perhaps forget to add the acid to the bleach?

A reflex bolex requires a correction of 2/3rds of a stop. Yes, there is approximately a 1/3rd stop loss of light due to the reflex prism. There is also, however, about a 1/3rd stop difference between the 180 degree shutter opening that your light meter will most likely be assuming and the 130 degree shutter opening of the rx bolex. So you need to factor 2/3rds of a stop for an RX bolex. On top of that, your nikon lens adaptor may itself have a light loss factor to take into account. I can't tell you about that. cheers, richard

Rob is right. There is no 'easy' way to remove rem-jet that works perfectly. Wish there was. You will need to soften the rem-jet, then wash the film a few times, then wipe the remainder off by hand, knowing that there will be some on the emulsion side of the film - not much, but some. cheers, richard

Setting the eyepiece diopter is the critical thing you need to do. Read my instructions on doing this here:

Hi Chris, try rotating the cartridge core CLOCKWISE (never the other way) until the film starts to move in the film window (you know, the open part of the cartridge where you can see the film). Do this with new cartridges too. It may help. If you are having trouble, make sure you are using super fresh batteries. If they are getting low, it can be a problem. richard

No. A fridge is a hyper humid environment. You have to have film in a sealed container to put in in a fridge so as wet air doesn't get in. Whereas you don't want to keep acetate in a sealed tin if you want to keep it archivally. Just a cool dry place, preferably not humid. ricahrd