Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: What happened to Ektar film?(Mr. Pytlak or anyone?)

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Operations » Film Handlers' Forum » What happened to Ektar film?(Mr. Pytlak or anyone?) (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Author

Topic: What happened to Ektar film?(Mr. Pytlak or anyone?)

Jeff Stricker
Master Film Handler

Posts: 481
From: Calumet, Mi USA
Registered: Nov 1999

posted 02-28-2001 12:46 PM

Scott, Nice B&W work. Are the microphones
those guys are using in the photo old vintage Shure 55's? (Elvis Presley style)

Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster

Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99

posted 02-28-2001 06:52 PM

Scott,
Definately give Velvia a try. I think you will be very impressed with it, but be ready for some wide aperture shots, and or long exposures. I ahve a number of my prints hanging in my office, taken with both 4X5 and 6X9, and they are literally grainless. I guarantee that you will be blown away by the resolving power. I'll try to get some of my transparencys scanned and put up links to them. The main problem is that they generate around 75 meg files and it takes a zip disk for each file.
Mark

Hillary Charles
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 748
From: York, PA, USA
Registered: Feb 2001

posted 02-28-2001 08:55 PM

Mark,

Have you tried the new Provia 100F yet? It's even finer-grained than Velvia AND at 100 ISO. The colors aren't quite as saturated, but it also produces beautiful Ilfochromes.

I continue to use Kodachrome in my old Stereo Realist--no other film looks quite "right" in that format.

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-16-2001 09:27 AM

Jeff -- I think the microphones are the newer Shure models that use the SM48 capsule in the 55-style housing, but I'm not sure. The band in that picture was going for the '50s aesthetic and did a pretty good job of achieving that look.

In case anyone cares, here are some of the better pics from the roll of Tmax that was pushed to 6400. They actually look a lot _less_ grainy because there was less need for underexposure correction in printing. This week, I have a couple of rolls that are being pushed to 12500 ASA (!), so I'll see how that looks. Not sure if anyone cares about this thread anymore, but I figured I'd go ahead and post the pics in case anyone was dying to know what Tmax pushed to 6400 asa looks like. There's a lot of shadow detail in the original pics that isn't captured in the scans, unfortunately.

picture #3 small (15k)
picture #3 large (197k)
picture #4 small (19k)
picture #4 large (250k)
picture #5 small (23k)
picture #5 large (346k)
picture #6 small (29k)
picture #6 large (387k)

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000

posted 03-16-2001 10:58 AM

Scott: Really good photos. How did you meter the light level to decide your exposure? With all that black area behind the band, a reflected light meter could easily be fooled.

What developer and processing conditions did you use to achieve the "push"?
http://www.kodak.com/cgi-bin/global/en/professional/webCatalog.pl?product=KODAK+T-MAX+P3200+Professional+Film+(TMZ)

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Eastman Kodak Company
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7419
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: 716-477-5325 Cell: 716-781-4036 Fax: 716-722-7243
E-Mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Scott Norwood
Film God

Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99

posted 03-16-2001 05:11 PM

John -- I'm honestly not sure on the developer, since I didn't do it myself. The local semi-pro camera shop does a better job and charges less than it would cost me to do it. I'm assuming that they used Tmax or Tmax RT developer and just extended the development time, as the instructions indicate. The prints were on "Kodak Professional Paper," but I'm not sure which type.

I admit that I just used the center-weighted meter in my camera for these shots. I couldn't really walk onto the stage with an incident meter, nor could I get someone else to hold up a grey card for me.

It was hard enough to sneak the camera into the venue. (It turns out that they do allow cameras, but I didn't know that when I entered.)

The hardest part was getting decent prints made. I went through a couple of sets of prints on most of these pictures. When they are printed on a machine, the density measurement appears to indicate overall underexposure, and the machine tries to over-compensate for this, yielding muddy grey areas which should have appeared black. I had to have most of these hand-printed by someone who understood that they are _supposed_ to look that way...

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.