Old, classic film look

[Steven Budden]

Thanks!

 

Even the G-3 tank was not easy to find when I was looking.

 

Anyway, I'll keep up the search. I'm not quite ready to hand process yet anyway. I just wanted to start messing with things so when I was ready I would not just start destroying film.

 

Also, I was saddened to find out I couldn't do reversal because the reversal prints for projecting were discontinued this year. I didn't know that.

 

Steven

[Nate Downes]

Just got ahold of him, will pay for them on friday (payday!). I'm so excited, I settled on 3 in the end tho.

[Chris Keth]

How does one crank a bolex? Do you use the rewind crank forward or do you use a handle in the motor drive shaft?

 

I was wondering about that. I had an epiphany that I could just use the rewind crank forward but then I found out it wouldn't really work because of different claw system? I dunno.

 

Herb, that sounds interesting. SO you got that old look? I suppose editing without a workprint could give some of the scratches and things. George Kuchar suggests to do this so a film feels like a rediscovered treasure which has been cleaned up as much as possible.

 

I've been interested to in hand developing. For 100 ft spools it wouldn't be so hard right?

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

100 foot spools isn't bad to develop at all, assuming you practice a little with a dummy load in the light first.

[Steven Budden]

Hand processing 100 foot rolls in a daylight tank sounds ideal. I don't have a darkroom or much roombut I do have the every useful multipurpose... bathroom!

 

Anyway, I'll keep searching for any of those tanks. The lomo sounds great but whichever daylight 16mm tank I can find. Let me know if any turn up.

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[Herb Montes]

The last time I saw a G3 tank was at the Houston's Camera Collectors show. They're having another one in September so I'll keep my eye out when I go again. Last time I was just looking for lenses though I did see quite a few 16mm cameras.

[Steven Budden]

The last time I saw a G3 tank was at the Houston's Camera Collectors show.  They're having another one in September so I'll keep my eye out when I go again.  Last time I was just looking for lenses though I did see quite a few 16mm cameras.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Alright all, I actually found a Lomo and a G-3 and I'm trying to decide between them. The Lomo guy says the tank gives such uniform development that one might as well use a lab. Hmmm... should I try the G- 3 for the look I'm going for ie... the hand processed look? Also, what else will I need to use those things, and how much space? (I don't have much).

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[Steven Budden]

I'm curious too about older hand processing methods or a good book on this subject. Are the methods the same as for still photography?

 

The results i've seen with the daylight tanks are so uniform, I'm really still after that Lumiere/ Muybridge look.

 

Also, about purchasing old black and white film... I guess it wouldn't be as risky as purchasing old or outdated color film but what would the risks be exactly? And where to find old film that might give me a more antiquated look?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[Herb Montes]

I'm curious too about older hand processing methods or a good book on this subject. Are the methods the same as for still photography?

 

The results i've seen with the daylight tanks are so uniform, I'm really still after that Lumiere/ Muybridge look.

 

Also, about purchasing old black and white film... I guess it wouldn't be as risky as purchasing old or outdated color film but what would the risks be exactly? And where to find old film that might give me a more antiquated look?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have a book in my personal library which is a hardbound reprint of a turn of the century manual on cameras and film of the early silent period. It discusses early mechanisms (Maltese cross, etc.). And there is a chapter on processing film. The old illustrations shows a simple rack which the film is wound on and the whole thing dipped into a tray to process. It would be a simple matter to make a rack and use basic processing trays though you need very big ones to handle this much film (the rack would hove to be big) and most of the processing done in the dark.

 

Using old film depends on how it was stored. You take a chance with this stuff and since you're using short lengths it would make sense to use more fresher stock.

[Nate Downes]

I'm curious too about older hand processing methods or a good book on this subject. Are the methods the same as for still photography?

 

The results i've seen with the daylight tanks are so uniform, I'm really still after that Lumiere/ Muybridge look.

 

Also, about purchasing old black and white film... I guess it wouldn't be as risky as purchasing old or outdated color film but what would the risks be exactly? And where to find old film that might give me a more antiquated look?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Film, try Kodak's Tri-X motion picture film. It is a film stock that is over 50 years old, and through verious processing methods can be given a wide variety of looks, some of which very classical.

[Herb Montes]

Film, try Kodak's Tri-X motion picture film.  It is a film stock that is over 50 years old, and through verious processing methods can be given a wide variety of looks, some of which very classical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A good choice would also be Fomapan. It has alot of silver in it so the blacks are that much more richer. Ideal for that film noir look. One source in the U.S. is:

 

http://www.jandcphotography.com/

 

A few labs still process though it can be easily be processed at home. I've shot Fomapan and really like it's look compared to Plus-X.

Edited August 15, 2005 by Herb Montes

[Nate Downes]

I forgot all about Fomapan there Herb, thanks for reminding me.

 

I still want to shoot a feature using it, for that film noir effect.

[Steven Budden]

Thanks, that's helpful.

 

Do both of those suggested stocks work with that kodak pre mixed black and white developing kit I've been hearing about? (It would be ideal if I wouldn't have to mix too many noxious chemicals in my bathroom). Same with the Fomapan... it looks cool but developing looks more technical... is it?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

 

PS. I also have this idea about using the chemicals for a little longer than I'm supposed to so the images begin to get washed out. That should work correct?

[Herb Montes]

Thanks, that's helpful.

 

Do both of those suggested stocks work with that kodak pre mixed black and white developing kit I've been hearing about? (It would be ideal if I wouldn't have to mix too many noxious chemicals in my bathroom). Same with the Fomapan... it looks cool but developing looks more technical... is it?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

 

PS. I also have this idea about using the chemicals for a little longer than I'm supposed to so the images begin to get washed out. That should work correct?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Fomapan uses more traditional chemistry to process. In fact most labs that process the new Plus-X will not touch Fomapan because the new chemistry will melt the emulsion off the base. I know of at least two or three labs in the U.S. and one in Canada that can handle Fomapan.

 

Also don't underestimate the power of filters with black and white film. I often use a Yellow No. 2 when filming with Fomapan or Plus-X. A red filter will give you even more stark effects.

[Nate Downes]

My only issue with fomapan is finding a lab able to process it once slit into Super8. I wanted to buy up a ton of the DS8 version and slit it, to load into the kaccema cartridge.

[Steven Budden]

I'm doing 16mm. In any case, I'm considering the Fomapan for hand processing. Once I process the stuff by hand any lab should be able to make me a print from the negative, correct?

 

Anyway, sounds like I might have to start off with the Plus X anyway so I can use the chemical kits until I get a firmer grasp on things.

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

[Herb Montes]

I'm doing 16mm.  In any case, I'm considering the Fomapan for hand processing. Once I process the stuff by hand any lab should be able to make me a print from the negative, correct?

 

Anyway, sounds like I might have to start off with the Plus X anyway so I can use the chemical kits until I get a firmer grasp on things.

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think the link I gave you for the film source also carries the chemistry. You can ask. Also several members of the Filmshooting.com forum have processed Fomapan so you can ask there for their knowledge. I have sent my film to labs such as Franklin which unfortunately is no longer around.

 

Yes, any lab can make a print from your negative.

[Steven Budden]

Thanks. I've been researching the chemistry and it doesn't look too bad. Mostly what I'll need to mix is the bleach bath and the clearing bath (simple). Didn't I read somewhere that new kodak emulsions don't require sulfuric acid in the bleach bath? I can't find that anywhere.

 

It looks like the Chemistry is about the same for Fomopan and Tri X, just the times increase by a few minutes for each step for Fomopan.

 

Do you use a scale and weights when you measure these chemicals? Also, how crucial is it that the temperature is at 68 degrees for reversal? Is that as crucial for the water rinses? Guess I can't just fill the tank with rinse water from my sink then?

 

One more question... for the re-exposure... it says use a white light? What qualifies as a white light exactly?

 

Thanks!

 

Steven

 

PS. I'll probably post this is Filmshooting.com as well.