Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
are less chem. used when porcessing as negaitive? 2016-01-30 7:50 GMT-04:00 Chris G : > Hey Morgan, > > Yes, flashing can compensate for underexposure and lack of shadow details > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_%28cinematography%29 > > There's also a good explanation of the process in the book Film Technology > in Post Production. Might not be worth the effort this time, but something > to consider. > > Stock solution refers to the non-diluted chemistry, with D-76 it's (most > often) used as 1:1 developer to water ratio. In general terms reversal > processing requires higher contrast, so using 2:1 developer to water or > just the stock would yield higher contrast, but if you go this route I > would do some tests first. > > > > Chris > > ___ > FrameWorks mailing list > FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com > https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks > > ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
Hey Morgan, Yes, flashing can compensate for underexposure and lack of shadow details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_%28cinematography%29 There's also a good explanation of the process in the book Film Technology in Post Production. Might not be worth the effort this time, but something to consider. Stock solution refers to the non-diluted chemistry, with D-76 it's (most often) used as 1:1 developer to water ratio. In general terms reversal processing requires higher contrast, so using 2:1 developer to water or just the stock would yield higher contrast, but if you go this route I would do some tests first. Chris ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
If you want to just process it as negative, follow the directions on the datasheet. It is designed for that and works very well. --scott ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
Here's a thread from the Film and Darkroom User forum with times/chemistry for processing 7222 as reversal: http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/archive/index.php/t-6026.html -JH Jason Halprin jihalp...@gmail.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
Hey Chris, What do you mean by flashing? Hitting it with light before I develop it? And what's this about using "non diluted stock solution"? What about steps to just processing it as the negative roll? On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 7:47 AM, Chris G wrote: Hi, D-76 as a reversal developer for *222 will probably be too low in contrast. One method you may want to look into is using the stock solution (non-diluted) and processing at a higher temperature to yield greater contrast. Generally speaking higher concentrations of B&W developers = more contrast. On the chemistry side you may consider adding a bit more Hydroquinone and/or adding Potassium Bromide for increasing contrast/reducing fog. D-19 had more Hydroquinone in it and was a preferred high-contrast developer for home reversal processing. D-76 has no restrainer, so the Bromide should help in clearing things up a bit. Both are widely available through Photographer's Formulary and their distributors (Adorama, B&H, Freestyle, Amazon, etc..). You could also do some tests with flashing the film to compensate for the lower ISO, this can be done after film has been exposed as long as it's before it has been processed. Either way I believe the film is/will be underexposed. I think you'll either have to flash the film or push it. Flashing might keep it from getting as grainy as push processing, but I'm just speculating as I've never done it. Keep us posted on your results, I have a bunch of 7222 sitting around myself. Chris ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
Hi, D-76 as a reversal developer for *222 will probably be too low in contrast. One method you may want to look into is using the stock solution (non-diluted) and processing at a higher temperature to yield greater contrast. Generally speaking higher concentrations of B&W developers = more contrast. On the chemistry side you may consider adding a bit more Hydroquinone and/or adding Potassium Bromide for increasing contrast/reducing fog. D-19 had more Hydroquinone in it and was a preferred high-contrast developer for home reversal processing. D-76 has no restrainer, so the Bromide should help in clearing things up a bit. Both are widely available through Photographer's Formulary and their distributors (Adorama, B&H, Freestyle, Amazon, etc..). You could also do some tests with flashing the film to compensate for the lower ISO, this can be done after film has been exposed as long as it's before it has been processed. Either way I believe the film is/will be underexposed. I think you'll either have to flash the film or push it. Flashing might keep it from getting as grainy as push processing, but I'm just speculating as I've never done it. Keep us posted on your results, I have a bunch of 7222 sitting around myself. Chris ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
Well, that would mean that you were approx 2 stops underexposed, so you could try for a push-4 in the 1st developer, which is a little off the charts. It might be worth shooting another roll with the same exposures (rate at ISO 200, meter and expose according to the meter), and then test development times using 10 ft strips. That would really be the only way to know for sure, as a push-4 means your exposure was in the toe-area of the characteristic curve (underexposed, ie most of what you exposed for would be in the shadow area under regular development - you would only see highlights as mid-tones, and mid-tones as shadow, shadows as full black). What chemistry are you trying to use? I can try to lookup times for regular processing (as reversal) and extrapolate from there. -Jason Halprin Jason Halprin jihalp...@gmail.com On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Morgan Hoyle-Combs wrote: > Well, the thing is I've already shot some indoors using a sekonic light > meter. The ISO was 200 so I opened it up all the way to 1.9 and shot > everything from 8 to 16 fps in the hopes to absorb more light. There were > even moments I shot everything with a hand crank. > > Perhaps I would need clarification on what I should do next? > > Thanks. > > ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal
To quote Robert Houlihan from a 2008 post on cinematography.com: "We have run XX22 as reversal before, if run and shot normal (as 200iso) it comes out very dark and muddy, you need to rate it as 50iso and or dump as much light on as possible and run it in the reversal chemistry as a push 2 to get a relatively thick exposure, it will be nasty and grainy but if that is what you are looking for... it is possible and we have run it here at Cinelab you just need to have your lab run it as a push 2..." (full thread here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=29949) Any negative B&W (or even color) stock can be processed as reversal, but require more initial exposure, something like 1.5-2 stops. Hopefully someone on this list can give you a good estimate regarding developing times & chemistry for 7222 (and a re-rated ISO), but if not, I would test with a 1st developer time starting around the push-2 time described above. Good Luck, Jason Halprin jihalp...@gmail.com ___ FrameWorks mailing list FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks