Richard Tuohy

If you bleach bypass with the normal colour reversal process, you have 100% silver - ie the negative image developed silver from the first developer, and the positive image developed silver from the second (chromagenic) developer. So, if its bleach bypass processed, it must also be cross processed using colour neg chemistry. ...which leads me to think, you could theoretically retain the silver from the second developer if you used a black and white bleach (like R9 or R10) after the first developer. This would remove the developed silver from the first developer, but not affect the remaining silver hailide which is then processed in the second developer. You could then skip the normal colour bleach and then just fix. Must try that. richard

Ian is correct that you don't want to shoot 100d with the internal 85 filter in place. HOWEVER, this doesn't necessarily mean you should manually switch the filter out by putting the filter switch or whatever in the 'bulb' position. Yes, doing so will switch out the filter, but it can (and usually does) also affect the asa setting of the camera. The asa notch for 100d is the same size as the asa notch for 160T. Most cameras also have filter notch detectors. The filter notch detector pin will be pushed in by the insertion of a daylight type cartridge. Doing so will de-select the internal 85 filter. With most cameras with filter notch detectors however, when the filter pin is inserted, the asa rating used by the camera doesn't change to the tungsten setting. Thus, with the majority of super 8 cameras, inserting a 100d with the filter switch or whatever set to 'sun' - ie the normal position - the filter will be de-activated and the asa will be correct. With most cameras, de-selecting the filter switch manually for a daylight cartridge will not only de-select the filter, but will also set the camera's asa setting to 2/3rds of a stop higher - ie to the tungsten speed for the particular asa notch in question. This would mean shooting 100d as 160. not ideal. Kodak have written on the Ektachrome boxes that you need to manually switch out the filter. As general advice, this is wrong. But it is correct for several crappy little cameras that Kodak made. cheers, richard

Hi John, right oh, the tank with two compartments will most likely be a re-wind type tank. These tanks can usually take 100 feet of film. The film is wound from one side of the tank to the other, and is only exposed to the chemistry while it is in transit between the compartments. They are very slow to use, and more of an art to use as well. Not as easy to get good results with these compared to a spiral tank. Not really suitable for colour because of the long processing times, combined with the problem of fluctuating temperature of the film as it goes in and out of the chemistry. The stainless steel tank that is over 1 foot in diameter could well be a spiral tank - that's the most likely thing. At that diameter, it could quite possibly be a 100 foot tank, but possibly only 50 or so. If its a spiral tank, then it certainly couldn't be 400' in length unless it can take multipl films in a stack. 11 cents a foot! that is amazing. Hand processing would have a hard time competing with that. richard

The pertinent question is whether Vision 3 500t currently comes with a 'filter notch' in the cartridge. If it does, then leave the filter switch (if there is one) set to 'sun'. If there is no filter notch, then in most super 8 cameras (those with filter notch detectors) the filter will be automatically switched out, so you will need to use an external 85 filter, or otherwise cut a notch in the cartridge so that the caemra's filter will remain in place. So, question one: is there a filter notch on current cartridges of 500T Qustion two is: does your camera have a filter notch detector. To answer your questions, we need the answer to these two. cheers, richard

You have a 400' tank? Never heard of such a thing. What makes you think it can take 400' at a time. Very curious to know. If it is like a Lomo tank (which were made in 30', 50' and 100' sizes) then you can process super 16. What Charles says is correct, except with a Lomo you put the sprocket side of the film down and the emulsion side out and you won't damage the super 16 picture area at all. let us know about the tank.

Well, maybe they could bring back TriX in Standard 8 which they have just discontinued! That decision seems at odds with the spirit of the above quoted announcement. If Kodak were to really adopt the above option, it would be quite a change from their recent behaviour.

Well, the somewhat infamous hand-made 35mm film coating machine (which looks really beautiful) was made here in Australia by an ex-kodak engineer ... but the actual film coating component was taken from an old kodachrome coating machine. And that part is the guts of it. So don't get too excited about hand made coating machines. I have Ron Lowrey's new book and have mixed my own bw emulsions and coated them on 16mm film by hand. Results are quite beautiful ... but they aint like commercial film coating results. Nor are the emulsions one can make at home anything like the emulsions made by a company like Kodak ... or even EFKE for that matter. You can make some very nice very slow speed blue or even blue and green sensitive emulsions. Colour? the closest one could possibly get is something like the dye bleach process. That would give very rudimentary colours and would be a real achievement. Yes, if we loose chromagenic colour film, we will probably nonetheless have black and white, and panchromatic black and white at that for a very long time supplied by smaller manufacturers. But there is absolutely no denying that chromagenic colour film - the colour film that we have been used to for a very long time - is an industrial production process and requires industrial volumes to be viable.

Its not quite clear what you are talking about here I am afraid Dylan. Some super 8 cameras were designed for either 40 or 160 asa film. These could be described as 'natively' 40 and 160 asa CAMERAS. But there is no such thing as a 40/160 asa film. A film might be either 40 or 160 asa (or any other speed) but not BOTH. So it is hard to know how to help. However, we can say the following: colour neg film has a wide exposure latitude, and is quite forgiving of exposure errors. When inserted in a super 8 camera that is set to AUTO exposure, most super 8 cameras will give very nice results with vision 3 200t. When exposing with a super 8 camera using an external light meter, you have to take both the shutter angle of the camera as well as the light loss due to the reflex viewfinder into account. This can total anything from half a stop to over two stops. Depends on the camera. Only way to find out is to do a test using reversal film. But simpler is to trust the camera's auto exposure and if you insist on using a hand held meter, calibrate the meter to the camera's auto exposure reading. That will get you to a perfectly useable ballpark for colour neg film (but not for reversal film!). Yes, there is also the question of the cameras internal 85 filter. Ibelieve vision 3 200t has no filter notch, meaning it is intended that you would use an external 85 filter on the camera. I cannot confirm this however as I don't process colour neg super 8 so I don't know for sure how the new 200t cartridges are notched. If there is no notch, you will need to use an external filter for shooting in daylight. cheers, richard

yes, that's right of course, this isn't the kodak preferred way of removing remjet, but its what diy people do. Kodak would have the remjet removed before development - but that means in the dark.

Remjet does tend to get harder to remove with age, at least that is my experience of working with old rolls. Any remjet left on the film will apear as white spots or streaks in your image when you make it positive. Generally, diy remjet removal will always leave a moderate amount of this 'sparkle'. After processing, you can help soften the remaining remjet (a good percentage will come off in your developer) by soaking the film in a tray with water with a spoonful of borax disolved in it. You will then need to wipe the film with a cloth or sponge to rub off more of the remjet. don't expect perfect results. that said, you should do it.

Yes, its the remjet that is the only problem. And Dagie is a 'she'...

Hi Alina, the meters in super 8 cameras run continuously when the trigger is pulled. That means, if pan around and get the sun in the lens, then sure enough the lens will stop down. According to the super 8 database, this camera also has manual exposure. http://www.super8data.com/database/cameras_list/cameras_bauer/bauer_c2m.htm With Bauer cameras, the control for auto and manual is usually under a little flap on the top side of the camera near the front. Under the flap you find a wheel with a green (for auto) position at one end (the rest being red for manual). If you haven't shot a test roll with this camera (as I describe here: http://nanolab.com.au/bracketed.htm ) you must trust the internal meter (as long as there are signs of life from it that is). If you shoot with colour negative super 8 (200 or 500), then you won't have a problem with exposure I suspect. Yes, the camera wasn't designed for these speeds, but that will be fine. Leave the filter switch on 'sun' because you will want the 85 filter for colour correction. In fact, I do recommend you use neg rather than the Ektachrome 100d with this camera as if this camera is like other Bauer cameras I have known, it doesn't have a filter notch pin. This means it won't automatically disengage the camera's internal 85 filter with daylight film (like the Ektachrome 100d). Yes, you can disengage the filter by using the 'sun/bulb' switch (the 'bulb' position is the 'no filter' position). However in this instance with a Bauer with no filter pin, this means it will expose the film as 160 asa rather than 100 asa. This is an essoteric fact about Bauer cameras, and it doesn't apply to almost all other brands - indeed to any brand that has a filter pin, with which the correct advice is to leave the filter switch or whatever mechanism there is on 'sun' even though you don't want the filter, as the filter pin will disengage the filter and switching it out yourself will affect the asa (I put all that there for other people reading this thread). There is a work around for using a Bauer with 100d. It is simply to take a reading with the switch on 'sun' - which is a 100 asa reading - then switch out the filter (bulb) and set the exposure manually to the reading you got when the switch was on 'sun'. Get the idea? Don't be put off by all this. All you have to do is: either shoot on colour neg film and have the filter switch set to 'sun' or shoot or Ektachrome 100d and do the work around I have described. Otherwise, go for it. richard

Hi Glenn, Your understanding of the Kodak viewing filters is correct. I use a set of these myself. Its quite an art, however. Its not like the viewing filters will mean you don't need to test. I guess someone with lots of experience can get pretty close first go. You will need to use the filters and make an assesment, then put in the appropriate filter pack and make a test print, then look at the print and view it again with the viewing filters and make another test ... that sort of thing. The only way to avoid having to get several tests processed will be to do a bunch of filter combinations on the one piece of film. Yes, if you can rig the colour enlarger head you have, then you won't need filters. You are right that you don't need to use Wratten filters or other filters of optical quality. I recommend you buy yourself a set of colour enlarger filters. These can usually be had on ebay quite cheaply. There is a set in this kit: http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/BESELER-COLOR-ANALYZER-PRINTING-KIT-CALCULATOR-FILTER-SET-DARKROOM-TIMER-MORE-/180835509521?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item2a1aa2e511 As for the filter combination you will need, looking at the print you have, the colour filters you need to correct with are the same colour as the cast you see in the image, but half as strong. So if the print you have has a yellow cast, you will need to use yellow filters, about half as dense as the cast looks. It is only half as strong because being print film it has a high gamma. It is the same colour as the cast because you are printing from neg to positive. If printing from neg to positive produced too much yellow, it means you had too much blue light for the print. You need to cut some of the blue by adding yellow. Get the idea ... cheers, richard

Hi Glen, I think you are going to be best off using the filter slot of the jK rather than trying to addapt a colour enlarger head as your light source ... though that would work. As charles pointed out, colour printing on the JK requires a subtractive process. What you do need is a set of colour filters (Y, C, M) in different strengths. Get some filters. Then do a whole lot of tests of various filter combinations, making careful notes. Just shoot a little bit of each combination you try. Then get that strip developed. THen look at it and determine which looked best. Then shoot the whole roll that way. As I said in many posts back, getting the right filter pack is a tedious process. But you are on your way. cheers, richard

There's no obvious explanation for the symptoms you describe I am afraid. The only thing that could go wrong with the camera is the internal 85 (orange) daylight to tungsten filter was not automatically de-activated (which it would have been). But I would not describe this effect at affecting the blacks and making them yellow. Who processed the film? Have you asked them yet? cheers, richard

Hi Jayson, well, the proceedure you specified was - set the meter to the asa of the film, then take readings at 1/30th and 1/50th and split the difference. That would work if there was no viewfinder loss. Factoring in for the viewfinder loss would mean that this should work. But how can you factor for the viewfinder loss? Well, if you were wanting to get this right, you would have to shoot a bracketed test as I describe on that web page then look at the results. I think it is easier to adjust the asa setting than the shutter setting on the meter. By making the adjustment with the asa setting, you can simply double the fps rate to get the correct shutter setting. Here's what I mean. Lets say you shoot your bracketed test (which is essential by the way if you plan on shooting on reversal film like ektachrome or tri=x, but not so essential when shooting on neg, and the test itself MUST be done on reversal film, not neg). Lets say you want to shoot at 24fps. So you set the shutter speed on the light meter to 1/50th, allowing the compensation for BOTH the shutter angle of the camera and the light loss by the viewfinder to be done via the asa setting. You then shoot the bracketed test, adjusting the asa with each shot. Then, when you get the film back, you can decide which is best. Lets say the best shots were had when you had set the asa 1 stop slower than the nominal rated speed. Fine - that's all the correction you will need. If it was Ektachrome, then that means you decided the best results were had when you set the asa to 50. Now, all you have to do in future for any film stock is compensate by this 1 stop setting. And all you have to do for any fps rate you want to shoot at is make like there was a 180 degree shutter and double the fps rate. This way, the one test has allowed you to determine the correct settings for any asa film and any fps rate. You don't have to do any 'split the difference' and you don't have to to work out shutter speeds for other frame rates other than simply doubling them. Of course, this is only one way to do it. It doesn't really matter how you take the two factors of shutter opening angle and viewfinder light loss into account, as long as you do. I just think that by making the correction with the asa rather than the shutter speed setting, you make life easier. Do remember, that this test MUST be done with reversal film. Shooting on negative won't inform you about the accuracy of your exposures. You did mention initially something about 'tending towards underexposing rather than over exposing'. Well with reversal film, you don't want to do either. Underexposing will block up your shadows, increase your contrast (a lot) and increase colour saturation. Overexposing will blow out your highlights, reduce contrast, and reduce colour saturation. 'Incorrect' exposure in either direction will result in lost information. It just wont be there. For 'optimal' results, you want 'correct' exposure (he says in 'scare quotes' because there really is no such thing as 'correct' just results that are 'desired' - and with reversal, desired results have to be achieved 'in camera').

Hi Jayson, With a super 8 camera, taking the shutter angle into account is only part of the story. you also need to factor something for the light lost due not having a mirrored shutter. Some of the light coming into the lens is being divided off and sent to the viewfinder, and only part of the light entering the lens is getting to the film. How much exactly? Well, good quesiton. The only way to find out is to do a carefully bracketed exposure test using reversal film. Here is a page on my lab website that explains how I recommend shooting an exposure test for using an external light meter: http://nanolab.com.au/bracketed.htm cheers, richard

Hi Ethan, you probalby should have posted this in the Super 8 forum. Not to worry though. The Super 8 Database doesn't have information about this particular model camera's film speed choices. However, if, as you say, the camera's manual does indeed say speed ratings 'between' 40/25 and 160/100, that would mean it can read 40, 64, 100, 160 Tungsten and 25, 40, 64 and 100 Daylight. Specifically, this means you can use Ektachrome 100d (reversal, ie a 'positive' film). You could also use the Vision 3 200T colour negative film. To use Tri-X black and white film, you would need to insert a screw in the movie light screw hole. It is a long story to explain why, but I'll try to reduce it and if you don't follow it, don't worry, just do as I say. Tri-X is in a daylight cartridge - that means there is no filter notch cut into the cartridge. If you insert tri-x in your camera, it will be read as a 100 asa daylight film. That is a 1 stop over expose which is too much for reversal film (but fine for negative film like the vision 3 200T colour). By inserting the movie light screw in the camera, the camera will now give readings based on the Tungsten speeds, rather than the daylight speeds. This means it will rate the Tri-X at 160 which is acceptable. good luck with it, richard

Hi there, I assume you mean cross process in ECN-II rather than C-41 (the latter being the chemistry used for still film colour neg, rather than for movie film colour neg). I believe Deluxe in London still process 16mm colour neg, so may be prepared to cross process 16mm Ektachrome for you. I do not believe they would be prepared to cross process super 8. For that, I would suggest Andec in Berlin. good luck with it, richard

There are many things that are typically wrong with K3 cameras. Often there is a problem with the trigger. The light meter can also not work at all. And other problems on from there. My recomendation would be don't buy a K3 at all. They are toy cameras compared to a bolex. If you get a K3, you will find it a frustrating and disapointing machine to use. That said, if you must buy one, buy a cheap one and get the feel of the quality. Better still, borrow one for a while. You will come back to bolex.

Kodak don't make a reversal kit for black and white film in a consumer size.

I enjoyed those. thanks for that. one forgets that that world was in colour too.

Actually, for us experimental film makers, film can't die, unless we want it to. If Industrial film stock manufacture goes, then we will most likely loose colour (though I assure you a DIY colour emulsion is being researched somewhere!) but the experimental film maker can easily make their own monochrome film emulsion. I've done it myself. The results can be quite remarkable. Film base is a separate problem, but there are oceans of film material out there for re-use. I don't think film base presents an insurmountable problem, given there are people and machines that can perforate film. We just have to find somewhere that is prepared to slit from whatever rolls of sheet material are being manufactured for other purposes. So, film won't die for the experimental film maker, which includes so-called 'direct film' a la McLaren and Brakhage etc.. (smile emoticon)

Standard 8 film comes on a daylight loading spool - as do the 100' lengths of 16mm. The spool basically prevents light from getting to the film from the sides. However the outer layer or two of film does get fogged when you handle it in the light. As with regular 16mm on 100' spools, you certainly can load standard 8 cameras in subdued light, and most people do (Kodak changed their recomendation to load 100' 16mm rolls 'in subdued light' to say 'load in total darkness' I think because of the emergence of Super 16, where very slight fogging on the non perforation edge of the film would be a problem). I recommend you do, at least the first few times. Yes, the outer layers of the film will be ruined by this process. Also, when you change the spools over when you have shot the first side of the film and re-thread the camera you will again fog that part of the film. So the beginning and the end of each side of the roll will be fogged, creating that classic 'rolling in' and 'rolling out' effect. Once you have done it a few times, loading standard 8 cameras is so easy (with the 25' cameras there is usually no sprocket wheels or anything - just the gate and claw) that you should do it in the dark so as to get the most images out of your roll of film. cheers, richard

Yes, 2R film is more flexible. But you can use 1R film 'either way' (as A-wind or B-wind). Single perf film doesn't really have a wind until images are put on it. 'Wind' is about emulsion geometry. With B-wind film, the emulsion reads correctly when looked at through the base. With A-wind film, the emulsion reads correctly when looked at through the emulsion side. By 'reads', imagine there are words in the photographed image on the film. The words themselves are readable correctly either when looked at from the base side or from the emulsion side depending on whether the film is A or B wind, with the first letter of any words in the image always on the 1R sprocket hole side (I say, the words hang off the sprocket hole). Camera film does have 'B-wind' written on the tin. This is because if you put images on this film in a normal camera and have the emulsion towards the lens, then the resulting emulsion geometry will be 'b-type' - ie reads correctly when looked at through the base. Many contact printers (like my Takita and Bell and Howell printers) are designed to print from b-wind originals that are head out. Because they print emulsion to emulsion, the resulting print has the oposite emulsion geometry. The emulsion reads correctly from the emulsion side (A-wind style). But if I want to make a print of that A-wind print (which would then be going back to B-wind), all I have to do is wind the original so that it is tail out. The resulting print will now be a B-wind print, even though it is from the same 2000' roll of 1R print stock that made the A-wind print. The print stock itself doesn't really have a wind until images are put on it. Same goes for camera stock. We can speak of unexposed camera or print stock as having a 'wind' only by imagining that it already has images on it. As for the OPs issue of putting 3383 in a bolex and using it on a JK, unless he wants to left-right flip the image on the super 8 original, 2R isn't useful for him. Myself, I find 2R stock (both camera stock and laboratory stocks) very useful. As an experimental film maker who finishes their films as 16mm prints I find the flexibility of 2R very important in my work. Yes, in optical printing, you can flip double perf original film such that the image in the copy is left-right flipped. You can also vertically flip the original image while keeping left-right orientation the same. In contact printing I find 2R even more useful, bearing in mind that to use the other sprocket hole in an odd number of generations means you are going to get either a left-right flip or an up-down flip. Don't get me wrong, I love 2R. Its just not going to be a benefit to the OP for making a faithful copy of their original super 8. cheers, richard