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