Dennis Couzin Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 (edited) Possible. But I bet they would have done film tests and found it was too contrasty to work with, especially in the modern DI world. That contrast is what made Plus-X so beautiful. Gorgeous film. Does "contrast" mean the same in these two posts? Macro-contrast has to do with gamma and D-max. It is so greatly adjustable with development of a B&W negative stock that Plus-X can't be termed "too contrasty". If macro-contrast can make Plus-X shot films beautiful, then the beauty must be in the final print (or digital release) which has its own macro-contrast only slightly dependent on Plus-X's? Micro-contrast has to do with acutance. Can it ever be too great for a DI? It is anyhow reducible with image processing. Micro-contrast could also be the "snap" mentioned by Dirk DeJonghe in post #6. It should show up in the MTF curves, but Plus-X's doesn't seem special. I've been out of the game for many years. If there is a new meaning of "contrast" I'm curious to learn it. Edited January 9, 2015 by Dennis Couzin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Bill DiPietra Posted January 9, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted January 9, 2015 Does "contrast" mean the same in these two posts? Macro-contrast has to do with gamma and D-max. It is so greatly adjustable with development of a B&W negative stock that Plus-X can't be termed "too contrasty". If macro-contrast can make Plus-X shot films beautiful, then the beauty must be in the final print (or digital release) which has its own macro-contrast only slightly dependent on Plus-X's? Micro-contrast has to do with acutance. Can it ever be too great for a DI? It is anyhow reducible with image processing. Micro-contrast could also be the "snap" mentioned by Dirk DeJonghe in post #6. It should show up in the MTF curves, but Plus-X's doesn't seem special. I've been out of the game for many years. If there is a new meaning of "contrast" I'm curious to learn it. Hey Dennis. You have far more technical knowledge than I do, but I can tell you of my own experiences using Plus-X. I made one short in 2010 using 7231 and I always do everything photochemically (including work-prints.). I finished it on film and had an answer print made. I also did a 2K transfer of the negative to HD, which looked gorgeous, but it didn't compare to the projected print. I can only tell you that the blacks were deeper than any stock I've ever used, and the grayscale in general seemed much more balanced than even 7222. It looked like I was getting the entire grayscale in a single image. Unfortunately, I lost the HD master in Hurricane Sandy. I plan to re-scan it and put it online sometime this year. Hope this post made sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 9, 2015 Premium Member Share Posted January 9, 2015 I always think of Plus-X as looking "pearlescent", with a lot of gray tones like the old MGM movies, and Double-X looking "sooty", like the old Warner Brothers films... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Couzin Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 I always think of Plus-X as looking "pearlescent", with a lot of gray tones like the old MGM movies, and Double-X looking "sooty", like the old Warner Brothers films... The characteristic curves for Plus-X (5231) and Double-X (5222) are extremely similar. Kodak data sheets provided these three curves at slightly different gammas The two for 5231 were slid along the log exposure axis to show how closely they surround the one for 5222. (The curves' tops suggest that 5222 may have higher D-max and thus greater latitude than 5231.) The differences David and others perceive are probably due to the two stocks' graininesses rather than to their tonalities per se. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Couzin Posted January 13, 2015 Share Posted January 13, 2015 (edited) Where did the belief that 5231 was excessively contrasty -- a myth, really -- come from? According to the Kodak data sheets the recommended control gamma for 5231 is 0.65 to 0.70, very average and exactly same as 5222's. However, 5231 reaches the control gamma with about 4½ minutes (D-96, 21°C) development, whereas 5222 needs about 7 minutes of the same kind of development to reach it. This means the lab must be competent, and not prone to compromise, so your 5231 and 5222 are each correctly processed. Are bad labs the source of the myth? The characteristic curves in Kodak's 5231 data sheet (H-1-5231 dated 2/99) are badly printed. The graph is stretched too tall, so a hasty glance would indicate that 5231 is very contrasty film. Could this be the source of the myth? Edited January 13, 2015 by Dennis Couzin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Couzin Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 For color print films, which can be much slower, the design is different, with the red sensitive layer on top, followed by the green sensitive layer, and the blue sensitive layer which will hardly contribute to final luminance on the bottom. (Unhappy mnemonic: when you hand clean a color print your cloth picks up some cyan color, whearas when you hand clean a color original your cloth picks up some yellow color.) Sorry there's an error, besides the spelling error, in that. Color print films have their green sensitive layer on top. The unhappiest mnemonics of all are those one forgets. 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