From: Robert Schaller (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 07 2009 - 14:59:30 PDT
Ken, so the lab just printed from negative onto 7363, then gave the
unprocessed rolls to you, right? Which means that if you processed it in a
single developer, it would be positive. Like you describe, and
straightforwardly so!
On 6/7/09 12:28 PM, "Ken Paul Rosenthal" <email suppressed>
wrote:
>
> Friends,
> Though my experience with (household) bleaching is limited, I've used a 50/50
> mixture of vinegar and water to neutralize the bleach, followed by a third
> bath of water to remove any residue vinegar/odor.
> Regarding home processing with hi-con b/w film and developers, I experienced
> great success in a collaboration with San Francisco-based Monaco Lab when
> working on my (yet to be fully realized) film, 'Flow'. --
> http://www.kenpaulrosenthal.com/flow.htm
> Introduced to hi-con 7363 on Phil Hoffman's Independent Filmmaking Retreat up
> in Canada, I intended to use it as a camera stock for 'Flow'. But given the
> irregularities of hand processing, I feared losing an entire week's shoot, and
> thousands of dollars. So I shot Plus-X b/w negative, which gave me more
> latitude to capture the details of the frothy surf which the off shore winter
> storms kicked up. Furthermore, I could make work prints, from which to chose
> my selects.
> I was not recording sound sync, so I made an A-roll negative from my selects,
> had it timed, then PRINTED (NOT processed) by the lab onto my hi-con 7363
> stock. The lab returned the exposed (but UNPROCESSED) 7363 to me in sealed
> cans, which I hand processed as either a positive or a negative, according to
> my wishes. If I didn't like the way my processing turned out, I simply had the
> lab print my selects again. The entire operations was quite smooth, and much
> cheaper than if the lab had processed my footage themselves.
> Here's the bizarre part--which I've never fully been able to wrap my head
> around--especially now some five years later: when I followed normal negative
> development (first developer/wash/fix/wash), I was getting a positive image!
> And when I processed using reversal development, I was getting a negative
> image! I believe this is why:
> 1) My camera original leaved a latent negative image on the Plus-X negative
> stock.2) The lab processed and exposed the negative onto my 7363 stock.3)
> When I hand processed the 7363, the first developer reverses the exposed image
> to a positive image. If I were to continue the processing and re-develop the
> image, it would reverse again and become a negative. Therefore...4)
> ...negative development yielded a positive image and reversal development
> yielded a negative.
> Phew! Robert Schaller and I tried to make sense of it back then and we could
> only speculate. Anyway, the results were super contrasty. And I used D-19.
> Someday, when I complete the film, it will look like the color test frames on
> the 'Flow' web page.
> Lastly, I'd like to suggest a (possibly) great new thread of stories from
> enterprising folks who have enjoyed similar, non-traditional collaborations
> with labs. And/or experiences with hybrid processes between analog and digital
> techniques.
> Ken
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving HotmailŪ.
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial
> _QuickAdd_062009
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.