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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » The Afterlife   » Old color films never fade away! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Old color films never fade away! Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-23-2003 11:48 PM                        Hello Christian, In my original post, I had mentioned that I did get to see "JIGOKUMON" (Gate of Hell) in a Japanese studio theatre here in Hawaii during it's first run when the film was new. The print quality was just exquisite. The film had very nice color saturation with very deep blacks. As a professional photographer I have accidently underexposed many color negatives and the prints I got from them looked very bad. From your description of the original negative, there is no way a very gorgeous film like, "GATE OF HELL" was printed from underexposed negatives. Who ever made that statement that the film became unprintable because the negatives were underexposed causing premature dye fading as a result did not know what he was saying. The problem with early Eastman Color was the process itself and the improper manner the negatives and print were stored because the people who were responsible for the storage was not aware of any problems until the damage was done. -Claude  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 05-24-2003 07:55 AM                        quote: Is this correct, or is there something specific to the dyes used in Eastman color negative stock which is significantly different than the dyes used in the (pre-LPP) print stock? Release prints are usually stored in warehouse-like conditions, not in properly conditioned areas that are cool and low humidity. Color negative films use totally different types of dye-forming couplers than color print films. For example, negative films use colored couplers that create a positive "mask" to enhance color reproduction --- the reason color negatives have an orange color. The ECP-2D print process also uses a different color developer (CD-2) than the ECN-2 negative process (CD-3). As I noted, there are literally hundreds of different couplers, and image-stability is only one of many factors that determine the best couplers to use in any given film.  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-24-2003 09:38 AM                     Apparently, exposure can have something to do with long-term stability. From what I've read, one of the factors that helped with the "Lawrence of Arabia" restoration was the fact that Freddie Young produced a very dense negative. I'm speculating, but does it make sense that if a negative has lots of density (and therefore lots of color) that it can still produce acceptable prints because whatever dye loss occurs is less percentage-wise than that which would happen to a thinner negative? In a 1981 article on color restoration in American Cinematographer, there was a mention that Disney wanted to make new prints from the 1956 "The Great Locomotive Chase," but the original negative had faded to the point where no acceptable prints could be struck. They had to go to the separations. [ 05-24-2003, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Hillary Charles ]  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-24-2003 05:18 PM                        Hillary, The negatives that produces the best quality motion pictures and still images are one's that have perfect exposures. An ideal negative should show good deatail in the shadows as well as the highlights and the difference between the two should not exceed a one to three ratio As I had mentioned in my post yesterday, underexposed negatives will give you images with very low contrast and the opposit is true with overexposure- very high contrast. The amount of time required to make prints is also determined by exposure. Underexposed negatives will require less time because of the thinness of the image on it. Overexposure will require much more time to print because of the heavy density of the negative. There is no way the negative of "LAWRENCE OF ARABIA" was deliberately overexposed. By the way, if the negative was overexposed, why was there nice detail in the shadows and highlights? If the negative was 'hot' (overexposed), Lawrence's white robe and the desert sand would lack detail and be washed out showing no detail. -Claude -  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-24-2003 06:38 PM                     Claude, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I could swear that I read Robert Harris discussing the fact that Freddie Young provided a slightly more dense negative than was normal. If Mr. Harris sees this thread, I hope he can clarify this point. In the meantime, if and when I find the source of this concept, I'll make sure to post it. I print thousands of photos a week and am aware of the effects of under- and overexposure (damn disposable cameras!). I am also aware that what is considered "perfect" exposure varies. Ansel Adams "overexposed" his negs to record shadow detail, and underdeveloped to avoid blocked up highlights. Many photographers who use Velvia routinely rate it at ISO 40, instead of the recommended 50, to reduce contrast. Also, when shooting 16mm negative (as well as 35mm still), I've been aware that slight overexposure produces more saturated colors (underexposure desaturates colors). As I prefer more saturated colors, I usually rate my negative films slightly lower than the manufacturer does. To me, there is an asthetic advantage to a little beefier negative. Based on what I recall reading, there may be an archival benefit as well.  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 05-24-2003 07:52 PM                        Hillary, Yes, there is a difference between a negative that has been deliberately overexposed and underdeveloped to record shadow and highlight detail and one that has been very densely overexposed for good color saturation. Good color saturation is not achieved that way. The over under process of Ansel Adams is known as the "Zone System" and I know it very well. I once photographed a very white bar of soap against a black cloth background as an assognment when I studied photography at Brooks Institute and it was a very valuable assignment and have always osed the method when working with subjects that was very contrasty when I maintained a darkroom at my studio. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-24-2003 10:36 PM                     Claude, Keep in mind that I never wrote "very densely overexposed" in order to achieve "good color saturation." I said that I like my negatives slightly denser than what would be considered "normal" in order to achieve better saturation. I'm surprised to read that it doesn't work, as first-hand experiences has shown me otherwise. As far as doing that, I learned that from other filmmakers and photographers. I didn't come up with that idea on my own, so it must have some validity. And I'm talking less than one stop of "overexposure" with a film that has three stops over worth of latitude (and which will still show detail in the highlights and the shadows when printed). I've GOT to find that LOA article... I did find an interview here: http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com/bigreport7.shtml in which Mr. Harris points out that the thinner the negative, the more prone it is to fading. Because of that, one can safely assume that the stunning images in LOA remained because the negative was fully exposed. [ 05-25-2003, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Hillary Charles ]  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-25-2003 12:29 PM                     Actually from what I've read over the past decade on film restoration I would have to come to the conclusion that negative fading is actually a pretty serious thing and it also accounts for a great percentage of our color film heritage. Because a film was shot in technicolor does not at all guarantee a good color print is available. Becky Sharp is a good example of the problems encountered with that process where some of the restoration elements came from Cinecolor 16mm tv prints! GWTW's camera neg was I believe stored in the salt mines which are a good place and constant temperature type storage place. That made restoring it(if you would want to call it restoration but I don't think Turner has actually done any actual restoration at all) much easier. Unfortunately not all of the studios have proper film storage vaults by any means, or store all things in the salt mines, nor do they save everything as far as film and sound from a given production. A really good example was with L.O.A. when Bob Harris had a 70mm print made from original 65mm negative material and the color again had greatly shifted. The Following is from the restoration of L.O.A. in the Morris & Raskin book......Chapter nine. "Columbia Pictures hadn't been as careful. Harris had examined the camera negative, and it was warped, dried, and the splices were starting to open. He knew, too, that it was fading, or changing, as color film materials do. It was twenty six years old. The negative was in Eastman color, and when Eastman color negatives deteriorate the yellow component of the negative is first to fade. This means that when the negative is printed, the black and shadows shifts to blue. To correct for this, more yellow must be "pumped" into the print, which corrects the blacks but gives the prints an overall yellow cast. The first print Harris saw off the negative was extraodairnaily yellow. He was concerned about his chances of saving the film at all" According to the book, also during the final printing of the negatives for L.O.A. the original 65mm camera negatives also began to disintegrate, splices ripped apart tearing the original camera negative countless times and alternate takes had to be used to repair those destroyed scenes. Also 600,000 feet of original sound mixing elements were tossed out, making sound restoration of L.O.A. doubly difficult and requiring many actors to return to do their lines for countless scenes over again. It is really a testament to Bob's film restoration abilities that we were able to see L.O.A. again. That it looked even better than it did in its original release is nothing short of a miracle considering the condition the negative was in! The fact that Bob Harris has not received an honarary Oscar for all his great work makes me sick. There are many other recent examples of bad color shift. One is the recent print at Bradford of "This Is Cinerama" where none of the panels match really well any longer, and in some scenes the match is really bad. Another was the recent re-issue of Star Wars, hich had greatly shifted in color. Those release prints looked awful at best. I think this is the type of stuff that preservationists are really worried about... Mark  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-25-2003 02:00 PM                     Mark, Thanks for the info. I don't mean to minimize the work of those who restore films. My admiration for this work is second to none, and the restoration of LOA had to have been a major undertaking. I had read about the splices tearing apart as the negative was being printed, seems to have been obstacles every step of the way. Nothing about this restoration seems to have been easy. That bluish cast in the shadows was the same thing Disney experienced when trying to print from vintage color negative, and stands to reason that it is all too common. That the results are so spectacular is a tribute to Mr. Harris' efforts. Especially because it doesn't take anything away from Mr. Harris' work, I still stand by my original contention that a negative with more density will not look <quite> as bad after 40 years as one with less density, everything else (processing, storage, etc.) being equal.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-25-2003 02:30 PM                     Hllary, I agree that if you overexpose for a denser negative it will certainly be able to yield better color for a bit longer time. It may also be possible to extract a closer to the original B&W seperation set by varying the exposure time on each color seperation. As far as Velvia goes I've always used it in both 4X5 and 6X9 at 50, not 40 as some do. Never had a problem with contrast build up either, and all of mine are printed to Ilfochromes! I've shot some Kodak Ektachrome Sw with some sucess but the Velvia images always wins hands down. Some of mine I have printed myself, some were done by the same lab that Tom Till uses. The lab prints always blow me away, while my home grown Ilfochromes look great, but don't jump out at you like the lab prints do. Donno, but Velvia and Ilfochrome just seem to go together! Mark  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-25-2003 04:32 PM                     Mark, I will continue to rate Velvia at 50 as well, I like the saturated look. Funny you should be mentioning Ilfochromes, 'cause I'll be printing some tonight. Although I haven't made the jump to large format yet (those must look amazing), my transparencies are 6x7 and blow up real good! Yeah, Velvia and Ilfochrome all the way! BTW, have you ever had to use contrast masks?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-25-2003 09:59 PM                     I've never used contrast masks myself but perhaps the lab does this to control things a bit better. My enlarger(Omega D5) and lenses(Rodenstocks) are pretty good and I keep the enlatrger in check with a laser alignment tool I bought, but the labs stuff looks pristene. I also use Rodenstocks prety exclusively on both the view cameras. I do have one ole Schneider 65mm Super Angulon though thats really nice and sharp. It covers the 4X5 too but I need to get the center filter for it. Mark  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-26-2003 08:17 AM                     Well, since my last post, I printed my first 16x20 Ilfochrome (after several years of 8x10's and 11x14's). I'm pleasantly surprised with the result, but don't think I'd want to make them any larger unless I was working with LF as you are. It would be interesting to know what the pro lab does differently. I've read that to really become proficient at printing Ilfochrome, you have to do it on a regular basis. Let's just hope they keep making the materials for some time.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 05-26-2003 09:07 AM                     Hey, thats pretty cool! 16X20's are alot of work just to handle in pitch darkness, and getting the chems into and out of the drum is another problem with that size without getting any splotches. I use a JOBO processor for just the printing end of things, I take the film to a good E-6 lab near me and let them process that stuff since they do it in two hours or less..... so first thing on Monday morning I hit the lab to see what results I am getting. With so much stuff out there to photograph I've always wanted an 8X10 view camera. Unfortunately there are no labs in SLC that can do any more than contacts. I'd have to send the chromes to the westcoast for anything larger than that. There is also only one lab(one man lab actually) in SLC that does Ilfochrome, but the stuff that comes out of there is fantastic!! One thing I want to try soo is having a couple of chromes enlarged by the laser printing method. Same Ilfochrome paper and chems but the paper is scanned by lasers to create the image. MArk  |  IP: Logged Hillary Charles Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 748 From: York, PA, USA Registered: Feb 2001 posted 05-26-2003 10:32 AM                     Handling that 16x20 was a bit of a challenge. One sheet was cut into surprisingly precise 8x10's for testing purposes (I am NOT going to waste 360 ml of chemistry on a test!). To avoid splotches, I've made a habit of a water rinse before every processing step, especially developing. Since I do not yet have a proper print washer for that size sheet, I adapted a waste can for the purpose. It did the job, but something will have to be changed if this is to be done on any kind of regular basis. You'll have to let me know how the laser prints turn out. I prefer the "old-fashioned" methods, but am not a Luddite. Has this thread gone OT of what?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

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.