Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]It's avail in 400 or 1000 ft rolls. You'll have to spend some time in the darkroom winding off however much will fit in your bulk loader by hand (different models will take different lengths). I guess I can get about 250' in my Watson. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Dante Stella <dstella1 at ameritech.net>wrote: > Where are you finding 100-150ft rolls? That's the max size that fits the > mainstream 35mm units. Are they short ends? Or is there some massively > larger loader that take the 400-footers? > > Interesting on the coating; I looked this up, and they apparently use > *less* antihalo coating on the b/w cinema film than they do b/w still film. > > Best, > Dante > > On Nov 14, 2011, at 9:44 AM, Lew Schwartz <lew1716 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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 > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >