Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I haven't noticed any coatings. Nothing comes off in processing and the negs are as clear as any other film I process. Fits in all my bulk loaders ok, too. It does have motion picture sprocket holes, slightly different from what we usually get for 35mm still film/cameras, but this hasn't produced any problems running through my M's or Voigtlander's. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net>wrote: > And isn't it the same xx that has the nasty remjet coating and comes only > in 400ft rolls? That size doesn't exactly drop into a Watson loader. > > Dante > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 8:36 AM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Could you make a succinct statement re why you like the Edwal 12/XX combo > > so much? > > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 3:23 AM, Larry Bullis <kingfisher at halcyon.com > >wrote: > > > >> Don Cardwell, Lee Lumkin, Thomas Bertilsson and myself did a continuing > >> study on Edwal 12 a while back. XX was a film that I took on as my > personal > >> project. I sort of dropped it because the sole supplier "film emporium" > >> couldn't seem to get it any more. Kodak supplying it in bulk? Very hard > to > >> imagine. > >> > >> So I have pretty good data with this obscure, obsolete (!) chemistry > with > >> a pretty obscure, BUT entirely appropriate chemistry. Everyone has > >> forgotten about this. I can tell you that it is amazing. But I can't > show > >> you much. Why? because IF words and images can say the same thing, one > of > >> them is lying. I do not maintain an online presence, but if you wish, I > >> will attempt to put something up you might relate to. > >> > >> If anyone is really serious about pursuing this (and, I REALLY mean > >> REALLY, I'm not interested in casual unless there's enough serious > interest > >> to support it) I would be interested in either creating a new group to > >> study it, or, maybe more likely to bring additional research into the > >> existing group. I can't speak for my dearly beloved fellows, but I can't > >> imagine them not rising to the concept, even though they may stop short > of > >> the densitometer. Don't worry, though. I have one or two of those awful > >> arcane things, too. > >> > >> I do think though that this film with this particular amazingly > >> appropriate chemistry is something that surpasses any particular > existing > >> loyalties - especially given the way things are going right now. I think > >> that if we have interest in stuff like this, the time is RIGHT NOW to > >> express that interest and create whatever body of research we possibly > can. > >> Otherwise it will go the way of that other XX - the super one, that I > miss > >> so desperately. It is time for us to speak up and demand that film > >> persists. It is stupid to abandon a peak technology for something that > >> can't replace it but could provide yet another viable medium. > Photography > >> as we knew it is like engraving was in 1860 right now. Looked at a > dollar > >> bill lately? > >> > >> I don't think that you're going to find a better place to start. The > film > >> is wonderful. Do you like the 1960's aesthetic, as I do? The research > team > >> already at hand for the developer is a great place to start. At least, > I'm > >> ready to go. > >> > >> The film is one that we've all seen in the movies - but we're sure not > >> seeing it any more. > >> > >> L > >> > >> On 11/13/11 8:41 PM, lug-request at leica-users.org wrote: > >> > >>> Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2011 11:53:32 -0800 > >>> From: Richard Man<richard at richardmanphoto.**com< > richard at richardmanphoto.com> > >>>> > >>> Subject: Re: [Leica] FYI: Fresh 5222 avail direct from Kodak > >>> To: Leica Users Group<lug at leica-users.org> > >>> Message-ID: > >>> <CAF8hL-**FPxy1Q4nAKVAdGvbtbqU7Rssm8_** > >>> brDVkDrwHzB6W8e7w at mail.gmail.**com< > CAF8hL-FPxy1Q4nAKVAdGvbtbqU7Rssm8_brDVkDrwHzB6W8e7w at mail.gmail.com> > >>>> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > >>> > >>> > >>> Isn't this the XX film? Phil Forrest gave me a roll (thanks!) in NYC, > and > >>> it does appear to be close to "old school" film. Of course I really > don't > >>> know much about old school film but it does the job competently, even > in > >>> this era of mixed analog/digital workflow. In the "Mark is sometimes > right > >>> even when he is wrong" department, I have settled on Acros 100 for > >>> landscape at ISO100, TriX for people/landscape at ISO320 and low light > >>> stuff of Neopan 1600 at ISO1000, all souped in the 2-bath Pyrocat-HD. I > >>> would gladly use the XX for Tri-X stuff but the Tri-X works so well > that > >>> there's hardly any need. I buy the Arista Premium from Freestyle which > is > >>> Tri-X for just over $3 a roll so the cost is not bad either. > >>> > >>> On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Lew Schwartz<lew1716 at gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>>> This film c > >>>> > >>> > >> ______________________________**_________________ > >> Leica Users Group. > >> See http://leica-users.org/**mailman/listinfo/lug< > http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug>for more information > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information >