Yevgeny Rybalko Posted November 12, 2010 Share Posted November 12, 2010 hi! I have a problem with 7222 stock. Bought brand new at kodak, not x-rayed, kept in the fridge at +5'C, 55% humidity. Can it be a result of overheating in developer or anything else? poor halftones, excessive grain in highlights/ measured scene contrast 2 stops was set around recommended EI 250D as -1 stop in the forest and +1 stop outside. It was not a sunny day, so, anyway the image must fit in the linear characteristic, but...look at the tree (halftones) and a piece of sky (grain!) thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted November 13, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2010 Tell us about the processing of your footage. Which temperature was the film bathed at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeny Rybalko Posted November 13, 2010 Author Share Posted November 13, 2010 Tell us about the processing of your footage. Which temperature was the film bathed at? I wish I know that.. It was developed without any special requests to the lab, so I guess in standart conditions (7 mins 21'c). But something went wrong, so I'm trying to find out what was wrong looking at the result. Thanks in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Have you looked at the negatives? Sorry, but just looking at a transfer on tape or a computer file it could be, literally, ANYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Rudmann Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 How was it transferred? That example looks very soft but it could just be compression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted November 13, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted November 13, 2010 (edited) Mr. Borowski is so right. Film is judged in direct projection. Why do you young folks not have contacts made? You want film, so work with film, especially with Double-X negative in a cow’s stomach. Edited November 13, 2010 by Simon Wyss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeny Rybalko Posted November 13, 2010 Author Share Posted November 13, 2010 Have you looked at the negatives? Sorry, but just looking at a transfer on tape or a computer file it could be, literally, ANYTHING. I was developing some color stock the same day and trasferred it one-light together with b/w to the same digibeta cassette. Color first (looked stunning) and then b/w - transfer operator just changed reel in a scanner and we both saw this defect on a scanner monitor. So it is not a transfer defect or file compression artifact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yevgeny Rybalko Posted November 13, 2010 Author Share Posted November 13, 2010 (edited) Look, I completely understand that all of you have transfer facilities and laboratories in your native town or country. In my country there are no laboratories, no specialists, no transfer, no kodak dealer, no film education and no feature production. A hell for young enthusiast)) So, as I'm trying to do something here and do not want to go digital - just can you be more detailed. I suppose this is why this forum exists. Thank you. Edited November 13, 2010 by Yevgeny Rybalko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 Listen, there are plenty of places like this. Only big cities in major countries (the U.S. is fortunate to have several, but even here, there isn't a movie film lab in every city), have film production facilities. Even if you don't have the negative ON YOU, have someone at the lab look at it an see if the negative looks dense or thin. It sounds though, from what you said, it looks like a bad transfer, or if it is a one-light transfer, it's just uncorrected. Looking at the file in photoshop, the FILE is underexposed, but again, that doesn't tell me anything. I suspect the film is fine, because there is detail in the shadows if I adjust the levels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K Borowski Posted November 13, 2010 Share Posted November 13, 2010 You want film, so work with film, especially with Double-X negative in a cow’s stomach. Simon, is that a literal translation of a German idiom? It doesn't really mean anything translated into English. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Simon Wyss Posted November 16, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2010 Simon, is that a literal translation of a German idiom? It doesn't really mean anything translated into English. Of course does it mean something. You probably don’t understand what I want to express: there’s this swiss german saying that it’s dark like inside a cow’s stomach or inside a cow. Sometimes we say Two Black Men Fighting with each other in a Tunnel at Night. High key would be called An Eskimo (I know, not PC) Fighting with an Ice Bear During a Snow Storm. I downloaded the picture data and made it appear full size on my monitor. It looked better than I first thought but still . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Kieran Scannell Posted November 16, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2010 hi! I have a problem with 7222 stock. Bought brand new at kodak, not x-rayed, kept in the fridge at +5'C, 55% humidity. Can it be a result of overheating in developer or anything else? poor halftones, excessive grain in highlights/ measured scene contrast 2 stops was set around recommended EI 250D as -1 stop in the forest and +1 stop outside. It was not a sunny day, so, anyway the image must fit in the linear characteristic, but...look at the tree (halftones) and a piece of sky (grain!) thank you. I've seen worse Yevgeny! I really don't see the problem with this frame, B&W 16mm in a forest! It looks to me properly exposed, a little grainy maybe but that's 16mm film. What exactly were you expecting to see in this frame? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted November 16, 2010 Premium Member Share Posted November 16, 2010 I've seen worse Yevgeny! I really don't see the problem with this frame, B&W 16mm in a forest! It looks to me properly exposed, a little grainy maybe but that's 16mm film. What exactly were you expecting to see in this frame? Could be a bit of reticulation...it seems to run down the center of the shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Friedemann Wachsmuth Posted November 17, 2010 Share Posted November 17, 2010 Yevgeny, beside the things said above, the JPG-file you posted contains a non-standard ICC profile that many Browsers on most operating systems will not render probably. It might be that you are so disappointed b/c your viewer-tool does not use color management (aka interprets icc profiles). When lifting the shadows a bit and properly converting it to sRGB, even this mediocre compressed JPG files looks quite ok: As Karl outlined, nobody can say for sure, but I would say that your negative contains a lot more information than what your example suggests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alain Lumina Posted December 14, 2010 Share Posted December 14, 2010 Could camera shake/movement have been a problem here? The background looks like it might have movement blur. Was this shot on a tripod? Was there panning happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now