More 320D tests.....

A selection of shots from a test roll of remjet free 320D shots I think it's fair to assume the camera has a light leak and possibily a faulty exposure meter - Still love the look of some of these!  Shots kindly supplied by an early tester. Film developed and printed at Aperture, London.

I've not made up any new 320D as yet. Honestly not been keeping on top with this film/remjet free project despite having a freezer full of 35mm stock. Mostly been sorting my Drum Scanning venture....

320D Test Shots!

It's been a while! Here's my first samples from remjet free Kodak 250D, shot at 320D. Only a handful of shots as it was a quick test before loading up more cassettes for serious shooting.

The samples rolls of this film sold out within a day! So I'm guessing people are into daylight film (I know I am). Although not great art, some of the films natural qualities can be discerned from these shots. The extreme highlights exhibit a red glow, this seems to be a feature of removing the remjet.
More 320D shots to come real soon.

Paper contact from Labyrinth and a quick drum scan of the negs with a quick invert in photoshop. 

Contact Scan

At last, got a few scans made up of my first remjet free test roll!

Top on is a scan of the supplied c-type contact print the lower image a selection of the negatives scanned as a contact on the drum scanner.

C-Type Contact. Note the extreme colours and contrast. The daylight shots are understandably blue (I did not use any filtration to adjust for the tungsten balance of the film). The interior shots are mostly off too. In fact the most intriguing shots to me are the table lamp (mixed light, tungsten and afternoon light) and the portrait in late afternoon sun. I'll try and scan these up asap. 

Digital Contact (PrimeScan 1200dpi + manual inversion). The digital contact shows far more detail and less inherent contrast. I've just applied a global correction, neither biased for the daylight shots or mixed light shots. I've kept the black level up too, so it's a bit less contrasty. This film is rather nice, it's got tons of detail. I'm undecided on the colour.

My first shots.....

At last!
One sample roll, rated at iso640. I've only got these dodgy iPhone shots of the contact and neg. I'm not near my scanners until later this week but I look forward to putting the negs through there paces under the Primescan and trying my new inversion technique for colour negatives.
Super thanks to Labrynth London for speedy development and contact.  More samples rolls to come within a week or two.......

Patient X - The first roll of CineVision 

Eternal Vision

Eterna or Vision?

I love Tri-X pushed, I miss Neopan 400. I use loads of Fuji C200 but switch to Kodak's Portra if it's an 'important' shoot. Film is an intimate and personal choice. They all have there quirks and own signature colourimetry that you learn through use.

This endeavour into motion picture film has opened up a whole load of questions about colour, grain, halation and processing tolerances. I'm really excited to see how Vision3 250D looks when shot as still and scanned by me, other examples are a guide but too little is know about there process. I tend to push my colour films to increase the grain, I'm rather keen on Seurat like colour noise derived from film grain, I tend to enhance it with a small aperture drum scan.

Detail of Georges Seurat's "A Sunday on La Grande Jette" 1886

Cinestill have chosen Kodak's well regarded Vision3 5219 500T Tungsten balanced film stock as the base of there 800T 35mm film*. There's obvious advantages to this choice, it's readily available new and as re-can. As is, there recent addition of Vision3 50D. But what of Fuji? Fuji also had a range of films stocks that included a Eterna 500t, 250D and 160D Vivid. Unfortunately these films are no longer in production but they available at incredibly attractive prices. I'm going to test them too..... 

* 800T but films E.I is 500T. I'm working up a post about the why and how the film is rated different from Kodak E.I recommendation. But i'm in process of reading up on film densitometry and gamma and how 'speed' is derived. All valuable learning as I near my first test batch of stocks. 

8fps

My plan is un-folding. The first stage, simply being to explore if the process of removing remjet is commercially viable. This after some phone calls to people with a vast knowledge of motion picture film, it appears to perfectly possible as a custom process. Leading to the obvious question, how much!

I have managed to find a few companies whom are selling off ECN2 processing machines of various vintages. There's a great appeal to think of owning the equipment and performing the whole process in house. But in London with space at an all time high price I doubt I would be in a position to explore this option. I've floated the idea of a Kickstarter in my head but it's too early. So i'm pushing on with using one of the few commercial cine labs left to quote on a custom setup for stripping the rem jet. My understanding at this stage is that the first bath and the jet/washer stage will be utilised then the subsequent development stages bypassed until the film reaches final rinse then into the dryer, of course all in absolute darkness!
Some serious testing will required. I also have queries about the films change in sensitivity and if there's any effect from film swelling.... all to be answered I hope.

Millions of feet....

Cine-Experiment

In a nutshell this blog will seek to map my exploration of an idea..... Taking readily available 35mm motion picture film, both fresh and old and re-purposing it for use by any 35mm still's photographer.

Sounds simple but alas there are many layers to be solved (these are just the ones i know of!)

Firstly, the most prominent issue is that colour movie stock has a carbon black layer called Rem-Jet. 

I believe this layer enhances anti-halation and helps reduce static during shooting. This layer is removed in motion picture films native development process, ECN2 with a high PH bath and water jets before passing on to development stages. But for the film to become usable in C41 colour process familiar to most still's photographers it must be removed before even being shot! You might think it ok to just use the film and then drop it in for processing..... The Rem-jet will ruin the colour chemistry and damage the negative in the process and probably make you very unpopular with your local lab. 

I must come clean early on and say the biggest impetus for this journey is the incredibly successful CineStill film from America and the abundance of affordable rolls of 35mm motion picture film I come across. 

My feeling is that is must be possible to create a process that leads to rolls of film that are substantially cheaper than the retail price of CineStill's 800T. Of course I could be wrong! 

In part I also want the process to be robust enough that any colour film stock can have it's remjet removed be spooled up for still use. This would open up a world of millions of feet of film stock to be played with. 

Watch this space......