Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Man, I've been working with this stuff for years & never came across this link. Thanks! On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Philip F <photo.forrest at earthlink.net>wrote: > The biggest place for data I've found is compiled here: > http://www.project-double-x.org/ > > Tom Abrahamson and a few others have shown beautiful results with D-76, > HC110 and Adox Borax MQ. I have yet to try the latter. > > Phil Forrest > > > -----Original Message----- > >From: charcot <charcot at comcast.net> > >Sent: Nov 14, 2011 11:01 AM > >To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org> > >Subject: Re: [Leica] FYI: Fresh 5222 avail direct from Kodak > > > > Well I made the plunge and bought a 400 ft roll. Anyone have any > >idea of ISO and dev. times for HC110? > > > >ernie > > > >On 11/14/2011 8:56 AM, Dante Stella 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 > >> > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 >