Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/11/14
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]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 >