Seth Baldwin

This is what Kodak says about storing EXR 100T "Store unexposed film at 13˚C (55˚F) or lower. For extended storage, store it at –18˚C (0˚F) or below. Process exposed film promptly. Store processed film at 21˚C (70˚F) or lower at a relative humidity of 40 to 50 percent for normal commercial storage; for long-term storage, store it at 2 to 10˚C (35 to 50˚F) at 15- to 30-percent relative humidity"

Well doesn't film just keep fogging faster each year it isn't frozen? When we say freezing won't make much difference, do we mean: 1. If its already very unusable, making it more unusable won't matter. Or: 2. That the fog has some kind of cut off point (where the film can't noticably fog more) If 1 is the case, then keeping it frozen seems smarter because why make something noticably worse. If 2 is true, then refrigeration should be fine.

Okay cool, thanks for the advice. A bit off topic but if after clip testing I find some of the stocks are decently fogged, are there any processing tips with ECN-2 that help to reduce or remove fog. Through a google search I came across this article where I guy managed to remove fog from old still black and white stock: https://www.diyphotography.net/how-i-removed-base-fog-from-old-film-stocks/ The results are pretty impressive. Are there any practices available for attempting to remove fog from old motion picture color negatives?

So I should be really making sure the remjet is *completely* removed during the first pre bath and wash. What happens if there is a bit of remjet still left on the film during the development steps following? Can it simply be wiped off the film at the end and be fine, or does it actually affect the image during development?

Yeah I'm certainly leaning towards a fridge based on what Robert mentioned earlier. When film is decades old, will freezing even really fit the purpose for why people even freeze their film in the first place? I've read for new stock you want to refrigerate up to 6 months, and start to freeze if being stored for longer then 6 months.

I'm developing still rolls of vision3 stock at home, and have gone through the process instructed from BelliniFoto's ECN-2 kit. I'm trying to refine my process and am interested on the typical process professional labs are using. My current process proceeds like this: 1. Prebath for 10 seconds in tank at 27 degrees celsius, continuous agitation. 2. Pour prebath back into bottle and fill the tank with warm water, close the lid and shake vigorously, open the lid and poor out the first bit of remjet, then run warm water through the tank until the color of water leaving the tank looks clear. 3. Developer at 41 degrees celsius into tank for 3 minutes, continuous agitation for the first 15 seconds, then 5 seconds every 30 seconds. 4. Pour developer back into bottle and pour stop into tank between 27 - 38 degrees celsius immediately for 30 seconds with continuous agitation. 5. Pour stop back into bottle and wash tank with warm water with continuous agitation for 30 seconds. 6. Bleach at 27 degrees celsius for 3 minutes, continuous agitation for first 15 seconds only. 7. Pour bleach back into bottle, run warm water through tank for 1 minutes, continuous agitation for first 15 seconds, then 5 seconds every 30 seconds. 8. Fixer between 27 - 38 degrees celsius for 2 minutes, continuous agitation for first 15 seconds, then 5 seconds every 30 seconds. 9. Pour fixer back into bottle, run warm water through tank for 2 minutes, continuous agitation for first 15 seconds, then 5 seconds every 30 seconds. 10. Rinse (stabiliser) between 27 - 38 degrees celsius for 10 seconds with continuous agitation. 11. Take film out of tank and hang, dip microfibre cloth into stabiliser and run it down film to try to remove left over remjet. This current process left me with white spots which I believe were from left over remjet or bacteria. How should I improve this current process? Cheers.

Okay guys again, I'm either going to buy a fridge or a freezer. Which one won't damage the film and preserve it better? From contacting the previous holders of the stock, most of them were stored refrigerated over the years. So fridge or freezer? Cheers

Okay cool. What about what Robert said? " I would recommend refrigeration not freezing. I feel that freezing can cause the carbon backing to stick to the emulsion. " I'm wanting a clear pick as I will be investing in either a new fridge or frost free freezer. Which option will preserve the film for longer and not damage it what so ever. Thanks.

The EXR stock at the latest was manufactured 23 years ago. Between 1989 and 1996. So it's obviously gonna be fogged by gamma by this point. Will freezing or refrigeration even matter much then. I want to keep the last breath it has alive as long as possible. Any tips to combat fogged film? I was just gonna rely on DI to try to bring contrast back to hopefully it's closest original state. Cheers.

The question is in regards to freezing unexposed unprocessed film. I wouldn't freeze processed film. What's the case with unexposed unprocessed film? It shouldn't frozen?

Does that have any impact on the image?

I've got some old 400ft kodak stocks rolling up that I will go through over the course of a year or so. The stocks are Kodak EXR 100T, Kodak EXR 50D, and Kodak Vision 800T. Would freezing them at -18 degrees in a frost free freezer with silica gel packets be ideal to preserve it longer? I won't put silica gel packets in the actual silver container holding the film, just on the outside. And silica gel packets don't work once below -3 but on cooling down its useful. Do the silver looking containers that hold 400ft film build up moisture or ice? Meaning, will keeping them in a freezer keep everything dry? Or is it better to refrigerate old motion picture stock. Cheers.

Well I've shot many rolls of portra 400 with this same lens combination and the focus has been considerably sharper. Its not like this was an issue in exposures where I maybe missed focus off a subject, even in cases like that you should still see sharpness where you missed focus, but you don't, it's all considerably softer in areas in focus compared to rolls of portra I shot. For example, lights have a streak like glow to them, like you'd expect to see shooting lights behind foggy glass. But my lenses were clean. Can such color cross-over from incorrect processing create such streak like softness?

Would be really interested to see those results. Do you know what scanner your lab is using? A densitometer would certainly help determine the negatives full potential but if your lab can share info on the scanner they're using or even specific settings, that would probably be fine for a rough estimate.

How many stops below middle gray would appear black and how many stops above middle gray would appear white for vision3 500t stock developed ECN-2 and scanned professionally. As it's film, of course dynamic range is also influenced by your labs work and scanning capabilities. For this reason, I expect rough estimates. But if someone who actually has good experience shooting this stock could let me know what the exposure profile appears to be, i'd really appreciate it. I'm not interested in knowing the dynamic range, I already know it's around 16 stops according to Kodak. I'm interested in knowing how many stops below middle gray I can determine as "basically black" and how many stops above middle gray I can determine as "basically white" for this specific stock.

Okay thank you. Also a side question, what is the industry standard software for working with dpx files for DI? Would it be resolve, baselight, or something else? What do most known colorists use, out of interest.

I'm quite new when it comes to grading film scans. How does the process usually work for higher end productions still shooting on film like 35mm. Is there a specific file format they work with to give them the most amount of information to grade or apply a lut to the scans? Do their scanners apply luts digitally in their scanner software, or do they scan as raw as possible to a specific file format then grade in software like resolve.

Tested out processing ECN-2 for the first time. I heard prior to processing that white spots can appear in scanning the film when the remjet layer isn't completely removed, or the film wasn't washed / stabilized well enough causing bacteria to develop on the film. During the prebath, I couldn't see any coloration left coming out of the tank, assuming the remjet was gone. And after processing I also ran a wet micro fiber cloth down the film to hopefully remove any left over remjet. For the wash, I soaked the film in it for about a minute. Can a trained eye tell me what these white spots appear to be from this scan? Thanks.

I developed a roll of 35mm vision3 250d and 500t for still photography recently, and my exposures appear to be blurry in focused areas, and also highlights that were in focus but not light sources have a subtle glow to them, again like it's been blurred. I have shot many rolls of portra 400 with this same lens with very sharp results so I don't think it's the lens. For some lower shutter speed conditions using the 500t roll, blur was expected. But for pretty much all of my 250d shots I was shooting the subject in pretty decent daylight between 1/250 and 1/500 and they still turned out blurry. So my guess is it was a flaw in development. This was my first time developing with ECN-2 and I might have been a degree or more off with my developer. I know it's important to be accurate with the developer and stop, but if the developer is off, can it actually cause the film to look blurry? Because everything else besides the developer went well, the prebath removed all the remjet, I added the stop in right after developer, bleach, fixer, and rinse all timed correctly. Would it make sense to assume the blur is caused by the developer being off in temperature by about a degree or so? Trying to pin point what this could be so I can avoid it next roll. Cheers.

What if I go for a shoulder rig setup. But because the viewfinder is in the centre of the camera, it'd have to be something along the lines as those DSLR shoulder rigs that position the operators head in front of the monitor attached to the camera vs the shoulder rigs that place the operators head on the side of the camera (which is the case with shoulder rigs made for cinema cameras). And it'd also have to be some kind of shoulder rig that places the camera slightly lower then the operators shoulder. And due to it's dimensions, a shoulder rig with handles spread wider apart. Any suggestions?

The mamiya gets hella heavy, even with a hand grip, and neck straps kill. Any systems like ready rigs that I can connect to the strap connectors? Its meant to be a studio camera, but I like the flexibility of going handheld more often.

I've been applying the zone system to how I view exposure using my light meter. I shoot still color film like portra 400 and vision3 500t rolled for stills. From what I've observed with how people apply the zone system to digital cameras, is they will keep the most important information nothing darker then 2 stops below middle gray, and nothing brighter then 2 stops above middle gray. Leaving the other 5 zones for highlights and blacks as those zones retain less information due to being too dark or too bright. This had me thinking, what is the stop latitude or zones past middle gray in popular color film where information can still be retained? At what zones does information become too bright or too dark. So specifically, how many stops above middle gray and below middle gray retain important information on popular color film like portra 400 and vision3 500t?

Very helpful responses everyone, ill go with the grey seamless. Thank you!

medium format**

This is more of a photography relevant question. I'm planning a photoshoot that needs a dark grey backdrop. I'm shooting it on median format film so can't reference during shooting, i could of course use my phone but the dynamic range would be a world of difference. Anyway, would it be more desirable to go with a white seamless backdrop and light the client further away from it so that it can roll off into a dark grey or would it be more desirable to get a true grey seamless and light the client closer? Assuming the backdrop would be wide enough to cater for both frames. The goal of this comparision is to understand which would be the most seamless, so have the most tonal consistency. I'm using f2.8 lens, so perhaps shooting shallow could also help in this situation. Thanks.