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