Re: OT: An oddity
On 21/09/2007, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. > > I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting re-prints from some > negatives. They'd been processed by another store in our chain, and she > had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers from the index print > and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap of one of our 4x6 > print wallets and left it for my relief to print. > > Got to work today, and there's a note that there's no numbers so the lab > operator didn't know what to print. > > Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the negatives, and lo & > behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame numbers, no film > identifiers ... NADA! > > Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our labs do. Looked like > regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative except the customer's > images. > > Anyone have thoughts on this? May it have been a cheap film containing 35mm movie film stock? -- Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
--- Digital Image Studio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21/09/2007, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that > before. > > > > I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting > re-prints from some > > negatives. They'd been processed by another store > in our chain, and she > > had the index print. I wrote down the frame > numbers from the index print > > and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap > of one of our 4x6 > > print wallets and left it for my relief to print. > > > > Got to work today, and there's a note that there's > no numbers so the lab > > operator didn't know what to print. > > > > Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the > negatives, and lo & > > behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame > numbers, no film > > identifiers ... NADA! > > > > Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our > labs do. Looked like > > regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative > except the customer's > > images. > > > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > May it have been a cheap film containing 35mm movie > film stock? > Rob - see my post about Seattle Film Works...I think you're right; if memory serves they used to re-spool short ends of Kodak color movie stock for still cameras. Can't be sure though. Funny thing is, I thought that the sprocket hole pitch was different in movie stocks and still stocks. Just can't remember...getting old. Maybe it's the wine? -Brendan Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
Are you sure it's not 126 film? Paul On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 21/09/2007, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. >> >> I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting re-prints from some >> negatives. They'd been processed by another store in our chain, >> and she >> had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers from the index >> print >> and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap of one of our 4x6 >> print wallets and left it for my relief to print. >> >> Got to work today, and there's a note that there's no numbers so >> the lab >> operator didn't know what to print. >> >> Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the negatives, and lo & >> behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame numbers, no film >> identifiers ... NADA! >> >> Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our labs do. Looked >> like >> regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative except the >> customer's >> images. >> >> Anyone have thoughts on this? > > May it have been a cheap film containing 35mm movie film stock? > > -- > Rob Studdert > HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA > Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO > http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ > Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
If I remember, Seattle Film Works used to sell film occasionally without edge numbering. But I think it was a glitch. It was terrible film, I shot four rolls of it in Washington State back in 1990. Just awful color. Otherwise, no, never seen that before with any maker, Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, or Ilford. -Brendan --- John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. > > I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting > re-prints from some > negatives. They'd been processed by another store in > our chain, and she > had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers > from the index print > and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap > of one of our 4x6 > print wallets and left it for my relief to print. > > Got to work today, and there's a note that there's > no numbers so the lab > operator didn't know what to print. > > Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the > negatives, and lo & > behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame > numbers, no film > identifiers ... NADA! > > Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our > labs do. Looked like > regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative > except the customer's > images. > > Anyone have thoughts on this? > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
126 film was pre-masked just like 110. G On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:25 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote: > Are you sure it's not 126 film? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
Seattle Film Works sold respooled movie film. It wasn't horrible but it also wasn't C41 process or intended for standard photofinishers' use. It was designed for printing onto movie stock for a positive and no one had the setups for it. I don't know what John's customer had, but I'd just call them and see if they would come in with the index print again so you can identify the frames. PITA but weird stuff happens... ! Godfrey On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: > If I remember, Seattle Film Works used to sell film > occasionally without edge numbering. But I think it > was a glitch. It was terrible film, I shot four rolls > of it in Washington State back in 1990. Just awful > color. Otherwise, no, never seen that before with any > maker, Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, or Ilford. > > -Brendan > --- John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. >> >> I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting >> re-prints from some >> negatives. They'd been processed by another store in >> our chain, and she >> had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers >> from the index print >> and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap >> of one of our 4x6 >> print wallets and left it for my relief to print. >> >> Got to work today, and there's a note that there's >> no numbers so the lab >> operator didn't know what to print. >> >> Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the >> negatives, and lo & >> behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame >> numbers, no film >> identifiers ... NADA! >> >> Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our >> labs do. Looked like >> regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative >> except the customer's >> images. >> >> Anyone have thoughts on this? >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > > > __ > __ > Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with > Yahoo! FareChase. > http://farechase.yahoo.com/ > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
126 film has frame numbers and an index hole, though no sprocket holes... Paul Stenquist wrote: > Are you sure it's not 126 film? > Paul > On Sep 20, 2007, at 10:07 PM, Digital Image Studio wrote: > > >> On 21/09/2007, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. >>> >>> I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting re-prints from some >>> negatives. They'd been processed by another store in our chain, >>> and she >>> had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers from the index >>> print >>> and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap of one of our 4x6 >>> print wallets and left it for my relief to print. >>> >>> Got to work today, and there's a note that there's no numbers so >>> the lab >>> operator didn't know what to print. >>> >>> Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the negatives, and lo & >>> behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame numbers, no film >>> identifiers ... NADA! >>> >>> Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our labs do. Looked >>> like >>> regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative except the >>> customer's >>> images. >>> >>> Anyone have thoughts on this? >>> >> May it have been a cheap film containing 35mm movie film stock? >> >> -- >> Rob Studdert >> HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA >> Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> http://picasaweb.google.com/distudio/PESO >> http://home.swiftdsl.com.au/~distudio//publications/ >> Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> > > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
I think 35mm movie film uses a different process. I have heard about some Chinese film that doesn't have frame numbers. Never seen it though. Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 21/09/2007, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. >> >> I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting re-prints from some >> negatives. They'd been processed by another store in our chain, and she >> had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers from the index print >> and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap of one of our 4x6 >> print wallets and left it for my relief to print. >> >> Got to work today, and there's a note that there's no numbers so the lab >> operator didn't know what to print. >> >> Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the negatives, and lo & >> behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame numbers, no film >> identifiers ... NADA! >> >> Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our labs do. Looked like >> regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative except the customer's >> images. >> >> Anyone have thoughts on this? >> > > May it have been a cheap film containing 35mm movie film stock? > > -- Remember, it’s pillage then burn. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
Digital Image Studio wrote: > On 21/09/2007, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. >> >> I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting re-prints from some >> negatives. They'd been processed by another store in our chain, and she >> had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers from the index print >> and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap of one of our 4x6 >> print wallets and left it for my relief to print. >> >> Got to work today, and there's a note that there's no numbers so the lab >> operator didn't know what to print. >> >> Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the negatives, and lo & >> behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame numbers, no film >> identifiers ... NADA! >> >> Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our labs do. Looked like >> regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative except the customer's >> images. >> >> Anyone have thoughts on this? > > May it have been a cheap film containing 35mm movie film stock? > My first thought was bulk film loaded at home. The Tri-X I've been loading has no frame numbers on it. But how likely is it that someone's rolling their own C-41 and getting it processed at a mini-lab? From what I recall most labs won't touch bulk loaded film. More than likely it's Chinese made film bought at a drug store or supermarket. They all carry it around here, and every chain has their own name on it. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com/fivetoedsloth/ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
Seattle Film Works, Dale Labs and others were re-spooling EastmanColor 5254 and 5247 movie stock. It has a black anti-halation coating that is removed as part of the developing process. If you run it through a mini-lab it will ruin the chemistry, gunk up the rollers and probably ruin any other film that gets processed before anything is cleaned. It prints with a whole different filter pack as compared to other "common" color negative films. -p Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Seattle Film Works sold respooled movie film. It wasn't horrible but > it also wasn't C41 process or intended for standard photofinishers' > use. It was designed for printing onto movie stock for a positive and > no one had the setups for it. > > I don't know what John's customer had, but I'd just call them and see > if they would come in with the index print again so you can identify > the frames. PITA but weird stuff happens... ! > > Godfrey > > > On Sep 20, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Brendan MacRae wrote: > >> If I remember, Seattle Film Works used to sell film >> occasionally without edge numbering. But I think it >> was a glitch. It was terrible film, I shot four rolls >> of it in Washington State back in 1990. Just awful >> color. Otherwise, no, never seen that before with any >> maker, Kodak, Fuji, Agfa, or Ilford. >> >> -Brendan >> --- John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. >>> >>> I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting >>> re-prints from some >>> negatives. They'd been processed by another store in >>> our chain, and she >>> had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers >>> from the index print >>> and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap >>> of one of our 4x6 >>> print wallets and left it for my relief to print. >>> >>> Got to work today, and there's a note that there's >>> no numbers so the lab >>> operator didn't know what to print. >>> >>> Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the >>> negatives, and lo & >>> behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame >>> numbers, no film >>> identifiers ... NADA! >>> >>> Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our >>> labs do. Looked like >>> regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative >>> except the customer's >>> images. >>> >>> Anyone have thoughts on this? >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> PDML@pdml.net >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> >> >> >> >> __ >> __ >> Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with >> Yahoo! FareChase. >> http://farechase.yahoo.com/ >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> PDML@pdml.net >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
From: Paul Stenquist > Are you sure it's not 126 film? > Paul It had the regular 2:3 ratio frames and sprocket holes on both edges like 35mm film. Base + Fog was a little thin looking, but that may have been because I'm so used to all the edge print, and don't remember ever seeing a completely clear base along there. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
On Sep 20, 2007, at 21:31, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > Seattle Film Works sold respooled movie film. It wasn't horrible but > it also wasn't C41 process or intended for standard photofinishers' > use. It was designed for printing onto movie stock for a positive and > no one had the setups for it. > 5247, wasn't that what it was called? But, yeah, not C41 so it's not likely that this is what it was. -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > Seattle Film Works sold respooled movie film. It wasn't horrible but > it also wasn't C41 process or intended for standard photofinishers' > use. It was designed for printing onto movie stock for a positive and > no one had the setups for it. > > I don't know what John's customer had, but I'd just call them and see > if they would come in with the index print again so you can identify > the frames. PITA but weird stuff happens... ! I didn't take the negatives out of the sleeves when I took the order because I got the frame numbers from the index print. I'm sure I didn't do the original processing, because I think I'm awake enough I would have noticed the lack of edge print at least by the time I went to sleeve the negatives. It was processed at one of our stores, because the index print had our brand logo, and our mini-labs only have C-41 equipment. Ergo, it's C-41 film, 'cause it wasn't screwed up. I've had to deal with that. We occasionally do get a roll of E-6 and at least once got Tri-X, and I had to post discreet signs reminding my co-workers to ... "LOOK AT THE FILM CAN AND MAKE SURE IT SAYS C-41 SOMEWHERE ON IT" ... because they'll just put it in the processor and it really upsets the customers because "*We* RUINED their film!!!". I wouldn't even class this as PITA, just enough of an oddity to be interesting. I left a couple of messages on her answering machine at the contact number, but she hadn't called back by the time I got off work. I don't work again until Saturday, so I also left notes on the film envelope explaining the problem. Hopefully if she calls or comes in while I'm not there, that will be enough so someone can figure it out and explain what we need to know so we can get her job done. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
There was a place in Hollywood called RGB that rewound several movie stocks for still camera use. They would process it both as a film positive and as prints. When I shot stills for a production company they asked me to use movie stock for some of them and hooked me up with RGB. It was good quality Kodak film. The results seemed a bit less contrasty but more saturated than C-41 film. One of my PUG posts was shot with it. However, this goes back to the days when my monitor calibration was way out of whack, so the rendering is not very accurate. But it's here: http://pug.komkon.org/00nove/monolake.html -- Original message -- From: John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > From: Godfrey DiGiorgi > > > Seattle Film Works sold respooled movie film. It wasn't horrible but > > it also wasn't C41 process or intended for standard photofinishers' > > use. It was designed for printing onto movie stock for a positive and > > no one had the setups for it. > > > > I don't know what John's customer had, but I'd just call them and see > > if they would come in with the index print again so you can identify > > the frames. PITA but weird stuff happens... ! > > > I didn't take the negatives out of the sleeves when I took the order > because I got the frame numbers from the index print. I'm sure I didn't > do the original processing, because I think I'm awake enough I would > have noticed the lack of edge print at least by the time I went to > sleeve the negatives. > > It was processed at one of our stores, because the index print had our > brand logo, and our mini-labs only have C-41 equipment. > > Ergo, it's C-41 film, 'cause it wasn't screwed up. > > I've had to deal with that. We occasionally do get a roll of E-6 and at > least once got Tri-X, and I had to post discreet signs reminding my > co-workers to ... > > "LOOK AT THE FILM CAN AND MAKE SURE IT SAYS C-41 SOMEWHERE ON IT" > > ... because they'll just put it in the processor and it really upsets > the customers because "*We* RUINED their film!!!". > > I wouldn't even class this as PITA, just enough of an oddity to be > interesting. > > I left a couple of messages on her answering machine at the contact > number, but she hadn't called back by the time I got off work. I don't > work again until Saturday, so I also left notes on the film envelope > explaining the problem. Hopefully if she calls or comes in while I'm not > there, that will be enough so someone can figure it out and explain what > we need to know so we can get her job done. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
On Sep 21, 2007, at 8:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > There was a place in Hollywood called RGB that rewound several > movie stocks for still camera use. They would process it both as a > film positive and as prints. That's the place! I have more than a few RGB boxes of slides in my drawer. And I got prints, too (which seemed the best of both possible worlds at the time). Even though the negatives are difficult to print, it's cool to have the multiple types of output. That is, it WAS cool - back in the day when I had "film" to be "processed", whatever that means. :-) -Charles -- Charles Robinson - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Minneapolis, MN http://charles.robinsontwins.org -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
> > There was a place in Hollywood called RGB that rewound several > > movie stocks for still camera use. They would process it both as a > > film positive and as prints. > > That's the place! I have more than a few RGB boxes of slides in my > drawer. And I got prints, too (which seemed the best of both > possible worlds at the time). > > Even though the negatives are difficult to print, it's cool to have > the multiple types of output. That is, it WAS cool - back in the day > when I had "film" to be "processed", whatever that means. :-) once for me a few E6 films got accidentally processed as C41. the resulting negatives were hard to process, at least judging from most of the results (one mini lab succeeded to get good prints, elsewhere colors got pretty miserable) just curious: are the negatives that you refer to similar? -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
Scott Loveless wrote: >More than likely it's Chinese made film bought at a drug store or >supermarket. They all carry it around here, and every chain has their >own name on it. I vote with Scott. I *think* I've seen film like this a few years ago at the photo shop, but we saw a lot of weird &[EMAIL PROTECTED] there ;-) -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
From: Axel Belinfante >>> There was a place in Hollywood called RGB that rewound several >>> > > movie stocks for still camera use. They would process it both as a >>> > > film positive and as prints. >> > >> > That's the place! I have more than a few RGB boxes of slides in my >> > drawer. And I got prints, too (which seemed the best of both >> > possible worlds at the time). >> > >> > Even though the negatives are difficult to print, it's cool to have >> > the multiple types of output. That is, it WAS cool - back in the day >> > when I had "film" to be "processed", whatever that means. :-) > > once for me a few E6 films got accidentally processed as C41. > the resulting negatives were hard to process, > at least judging from most of the results > (one mini lab succeeded to get good prints, elsewhere colors > got pretty miserable) > > just curious: are the negatives that you refer to similar? > > E-6 is sometimes cross-processed deliberately to get those weird colors. I believe the idea behind the movie film was the negative was meant to be contact printed onto another "negative" film to make the positive print (neg + neg = pos) that was projected in the theatre. That probably required a very different characteristic curve than is required for making paper prints from regular (C-41) negative film. Wouldn't surprise me if there are two different curves, one for the negative and one for the positive printed from the negative. The movie films would have been formulated to produce those different curves. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
Exactly. Cross processing is an entirely different animal. In modern times, some of the movie film stocks were designed to be transfered to digital video -- scanned if you will. So they scan rather nicely one frame at a time for the still photographer. Paul On Sep 21, 2007, at 8:21 PM, John Sessoms wrote: > From: Axel Belinfante > There was a place in Hollywood called RGB that rewound several >> movie stocks for still camera use. They would process it both >> as a >> film positive and as prints. That's the place! I have more than a few RGB boxes of slides in my drawer. And I got prints, too (which seemed the best of both possible worlds at the time). Even though the negatives are difficult to print, it's cool to have the multiple types of output. That is, it WAS cool - back in the day when I had "film" to be "processed", whatever that means. :-) >> >> once for me a few E6 films got accidentally processed as C41. >> the resulting negatives were hard to process, >> at least judging from most of the results >> (one mini lab succeeded to get good prints, elsewhere colors >> got pretty miserable) >> >> just curious: are the negatives that you refer to similar? >> >> > > E-6 is sometimes cross-processed deliberately to get those weird > colors. > > I believe the idea behind the movie film was the negative was meant to > be contact printed onto another "negative" film to make the positive > print (neg + neg = pos) that was projected in the theatre. > > That probably required a very different characteristic curve than is > required for making paper prints from regular (C-41) negative film. > Wouldn't surprise me if there are two different curves, one for the > negative and one for the positive printed from the negative. > > The movie films would have been formulated to produce those different > curves. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
On 9/20/07, John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I run a photo mini-lab. I've mentioned that before. > > I had a customer come in yesterday, wanting re-prints from some > negatives. They'd been processed by another store in our chain, and she > had the index print. I wrote down the frame numbers from the index print > and how many of each she wanted on the inside flap of one of our 4x6 > print wallets and left it for my relief to print. > > Got to work today, and there's a note that there's no numbers so the lab > operator didn't know what to print. > > Before I started making a fuss, I looked at the negatives, and lo & > behold, there's no edge print whatsoever; no frame numbers, no film > identifiers ... NADA! > > Had to have been C-41 film, 'cause that's all our labs do. Looked like > regular 35 mm, but there's nothing on the negative except the customer's > images. > > Anyone have thoughts on this? Cotty's back in the USA. Dave > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
On 22/09/07, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: >Cotty's back in the USA. Brooks you better watch your back boy! -- Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: OT: An oddity
I can barely see my front, thank you.:-) Dave On 9/23/07, Cotty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 22/09/07, David J Brooks, discombobulated, unleashed: > > >Cotty's back in the USA. > > Brooks you better watch your back boy! > > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com > _ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- Equine Photography www.caughtinmotion.com http://brooksinthecountry.blogspot.com/ Ontario Canada -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
