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

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » A camera loaded with "mystery film." (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: A camera loaded with "mystery film." John Walsh Film God Posts: 2490 From: Connecticut, USA, Earth, Milky Way Registered: Oct 1999 posted 01-22-2010 05:35 PM                     We shoud have a contest; see who guesses whats on the film, and the winner who's the closest gets a "Film-Tech" T-shirt or something.  |  IP: Logged Sean Weitzel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall) Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-22-2010 05:41 PM                     Ancient Kodachrome had an ASA of 10. Conventional Kodachrome that we're all used to was available in 25, 40(t), 64 and 200 (T=tungsten) Ektachrome came in lots of different speeds and color balance. Panatomic-X was a black and white 32asa negative film. I'm going to wager that it is a roll of Kodak royal gold 200 that has pictures taken of.........another camera!  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-22-2010 08:13 PM                     Yeah, the film was "Gold-200" 24 exp. but I got nearly 30 out of the roll. I dropped it off at the photo store this afternoon. They say they'll be ready by 4:00 PM on Monday. Chris, Once developed you can't re-expose the film. You would have to rewind the film and take a second set of images over top the first. I've done it before. You never know how the pictures will come out. This is a double exposure I took many years ago:  |  IP: Logged Sean Weitzel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 619 From: Vacaville, CA (1790 miles west of Rockwall) Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-22-2010 09:47 PM                     I like accidental double exposures. Here's what happens when you try Bruce's technique without counting the exposures properly when you reload the film: (Kodachrome 200)  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-22-2010 10:29 PM                     My double exposure was on purpose. It was an experiment. I shot the whole roll of film normally then rewound the film just until the film movement indicator stopped flickering. Then I opened the camera, reattached the tail of the film to the takeup spool and reshot the whole roll again. If I remember correctly, I set the exposure bracketing dial to 1/2 on the second round of pictures. It was a fun experiment but I only got one or two shots that were even usable out of that whole roll of film.  |  IP: Logged Joshua Waaland Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 800 From: Cleveland, Ohio Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-23-2010 12:58 AM                     Better hope it isn't pictures of something that gets you arrested. One time my brother found a camera or roll of film (can't remember which) and went to pick it up after it was processed. He was met by several cops when he got there. Seems the previous owner was doing something he should not have been doing. Once they saw that it obviously wasn't my brother in the pics, they believed his story.  |  IP: Logged Richard Hamilton Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1341 From: Evansville, Indiana Registered: Jan 2000 posted 01-23-2010 05:46 AM                     Joshua, you were going to let your brother take the fall for you?  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-23-2010 08:30 AM                     I have the electronic receipt from the purchase of the camera off eBay. I paid via PayPal. After that, I have two rounds of e-mail between me and the seller discussing the film that was left in the camera. There is a clear paper trail detailing the path that camera and film took between the seller and me. There is even a USPS tracking code on the box it was mailed in. They don't make Kodacolor Gold film anymore. It was introduced in 1986 and went out of production in 2007. The images in the camera could have been taken 24 years ago. Of course, they could have been taken last week if somebody kept a roll of that film in their refrigerator for three years. I don't know too many people who would do that. If they were going to take pictures of kiddy porn they would have most likely done it with a digital camera in 2007. I'm going to estimate the images are five to ten years old, more or less because the film had taken a pretty good "set" as it was wound backward around the takeup spool. It was a bit difficult to rewind the film when I finished the roll. The camera came from Colorado so I assume that's where the pictures originated. If there are any troublesome pictures on the film the cops would have to prove I was in Colorado at the time they were taken, with that camera in my possession. When I took the film in for developing, I told them not to print the images. The guy asked me if I wanted them scanned to a Picture Disk and I just told him, "No." Thus, I reduce the chances that anybody will look at the images for any longer than necessary to ensure the film was developed properly. If the lab tech knows how to read negatives he might catch a glimpse of the images while he is working but the chances of him mentally parsing the images is reduced if he doesn't see enlarged positive images. Yeah, I thought about the possibility of there being trouble before I even took the film to be developed.  |  IP: Logged Bruce McGee Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1776 From: Asheville, NC USA... Nowhere in Particular. Registered: Aug 1999 posted 01-23-2010 10:00 AM                     I bought a VGC Canon AE-1 camera at a thrift store a couple of years ago that came with a partial roll of film in it, too. Finished the roll, and got it developed. I now have 18 absolutely wonderful images of Big Cove in Cherokee NC in the fall. I blew 2 of them up to 8x10 size to frame. My meager pictures were not worth mentioning. I have absolutely no idea who took the pics. They had to be taken using a tripod. Absolutely sharp and well-framed. Hope the pics you have are something good.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 01-23-2010 10:25 AM                        They'll probably prove O.J.'s innocence and confirm it was Kato all along.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-23-2010 11:04 AM                     I probably would have just developed the pictures myself. C-41 isn't that bad or expensive. Just need a changing bag and the tank/reels. Steve  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Weigel Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1062 From: Edmond, OK, USA Registered: Mar 2007 posted 01-23-2010 11:21 AM                     If they're family photos I would try to get in touch with the original owner to find out if they would like the pics sent back to them (paying for postage of course).  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-23-2010 12:20 PM                     When I went to the photo store I also bought a chemistry kit for T-Max. I plan to develop all my own film, eventually. I have developed a lot of B/W film, T-Max, Tri-X, etc. I did a little bit of Ilford film, too. I have never developed color film at home. I have only done it by machine, like a Mini-Lab. You feed the film into one end and it comes out the other end all ready to print. I don't even remember the company that made it. I only used it once or twice. The class I was taking at Northeastern had the machine but I was not in the color film class. Only the B/W class. I sneaked a couple of rolls into the machine when there was a lull between classes. Even though I have never done a lot of advanced work, I understand B/W developing pretty well. You put the film in the tank, pour in the chemicals and shake it up. (So to speak! I can not imagine that developing C-41 color film is much more difficult than developing T-Max. I know there are more steps. There is the "Bleach/Fix" step. Right? I know you have to use a water bath to keep the tank and chemicals at the correct temperature throughout the developing steps. Right? The guy at the photo store gave me this big spiel about C-41 being so hard to develop at home and that it's not worth my time to do it. He said I should just bring it in to be developed. I don't know why the guy would give me a hard time about not spending $5.00 to get a roll of film developed when I just spent nearly $60.00 buying film and B/W chemistry. Shit! I'd spend that much again plus more to buy the C-41! When I go back to pick up my film, if he gives me any more shit, I'm just going to start ordering my film supplies from B&H or KEH then only buy from him if I need it quick. Anyhow, my plan is to develop a few rolls of T-Max just to get my chops back then I'll decide if I want to do C-41. What do you think about doing E-6 at home?  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 01-23-2010 03:18 PM                     I started off backwards in my darkroom...partly because I didn't have a darkroom! My first step into developing was E-6. I was really shooting slides a lot in the '70s. They had a lot of advantages...small storage, no separate negatives, via a slide projector, easier to show to a group than prints, prints can be made from them...etc. Another thing I liked about slides is the availability of Tungsten film too. When I went to Europe in the '70s (dad had clients in Germany), I would load up on Tungsten film and all of my lenses had "85" filters. The advantage here is that you didn't need a flash for indoors and the color was right for museums (not many fluorescencents). When I was outdoors, with tons of light, screw on the 85B filters and, tada, again no problem with color...plus it would knock some of the excess light down. As I recall, I pushed the film a stop or two to aid in indoor shots anyway. The downside to E-6 is that it is Icktachrome and the stability is wanting. Also, back then, E-6 was probably harder than it is now. You did have to carefully control your chemistry temps...particularly the developer (I recall it being something like 100-101F. I had a "color thermometer" from Kodak that was in the bath with the chemistry. I remember using "Skippy" peanut butter glass jars for everything...later in life they would be brown plastic "crush" jugs. There were 7 or so steps to E-6 then. I have no idea what it is now. C-41 got down to three steps. I think Bessler marketed a set of chemistry called the "3-step". It amounted to "Developer", "Bleach," and "Fixer." Pretty much the same number of steps in B&W (Developer, Stop, Fix). In Jr.High, I was quite involved on the school paper and the yearbook. That is when I really got into B&W. I bought Ilford HP5 and FP4 by the 100-foot rolls and loaded my own...particularly when the school was paying for film/paper/chemistry! I would shoot a sporting event in the afternoon and have pictures ready for the next day...often before the "reporter" had their story ready. And since I was doing the slide thing on color...I also enlarged them using the Cibachrome process...very good indeed. The last thing I did was C-41 and color prints from negatives. But when I did get into it...I was making chemistry by the gallon (again with my "crush" jugs to keep the air out. I was doing pictures from 16x20 and smaller, color or B&W. For doing 1-roll...it will be cheaper to let the lab do it...if you are hitting 5 rolls or more, as I recall...it is cheaper for you to do it...and nowadays, probably even more so as you don't often have to print any more...just scan. With computers, many of the advantages of slides are now had by negatives since they can be scanned though I've never seen ANYTHING top Kodachrome (And I never, of course, processed that). It remains my favorite. Steve  |  IP: Logged Randy Stankey Film God Posts: 6539 From: Erie, Pennsylvania Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-23-2010 04:18 PM                     You did Kodachrome by hand? Cripes! The guy at the camera store (the only one left in town) talks of Kodachrome as if it was black magic! I would probably buy film by the roll and have them develop it if not for the attitude I got. I think I'm going to get a bulk loader and buy film by the 100 ft. roll. When I was developing film in college I did a bunch of it at home in the bathroom. If you weren't actually taking a class you weren't supposed to use the darkroom but if the lab techs (usually grad students) got to know who you were from previous classes you could sneak in on occasion and run off a couple-three prints before anybody figured it out. At that time I didn't use crush jugs. I was just using empty (well washed) milk jugs and filling them up with glass marbles to take up air space. Everything was always kept in a closed cupboard under the sink so I didn't worry about light spoiling things. I still have a lot of my old stuff. I've got my tank reels and thermometer plus a few doodads like funnels and measures. All I really need is the chemicals. I can make working batches out of the concentrate solutions instead of making stock solutions. I'll do T-Max for a while just to get the hang of it again. Then, if I feel up to it, I'll do some C-41. If this really takes off I'll do some E-6. I'll work up to it a little at a time. Oh! And yes, I plan to scan everything. If I need anything printed on paper I'll do it with my inkjet or send it to a lab.  |  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.