thanks Pip! I'll investigate further ...
moiratierney.net vimeo.com/moiratierney
On Monday, September 27, 2021, 11:44:14 PM GMT+1, FrameWorks Admin
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Moira,my experience only extends to hand developing, so not as exact as at
a lab.Tri-X for black and white photo prints is rated at 400 ASA, while
developing it as a reversal it is rated at 200ASA.I have successfully gained a
stop when developing in negative. And three stops when pushing the negative two
stops. (1600ASA is not bad for super-8! Got some great shots of wet Paris
streets at night illuminated by passing cars).Negative has more latitude than
reversal, and I believe this is the same stock as Tri-X 400 PAN photo film.
Maybe someone else can chime in if the stock is missing a grey mask necessary
for the latitude. But I can’t believe Kodak would dedicate a wide roll of this
emulsion only for Super-8 and 16mmIn any case, you should be able to get good
results for the daylight film too. Remember that negative stocks lose
information in the blacks, while reversal stocks lose detail in the bright
highlights. I think that developing it as a negative would retain details in
the bright parts.There is a lot of writing about this online, google around for
other opinions!Pip
On Sep 28, 2021, at 6:57 AM, ev petrol <[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Pip, how would that affect the daylight footage?
think i'd be able to get away with it,, if i go for the 400 asa neg option?
moiratierney.net vimeo.com/moiratierney
On Monday, September 27, 2021, 03:49:48 PM GMT+1, FrameWorks Admin
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hey Moira,Since you are editing in digital, why not develop it as a negative?
In that case it should be 400ASA instead of 200, so you gain a stop. - Pip
--
Frameworks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
--
Frameworks mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.film-gallery.org/mailman/listinfo/frameworks_film-gallery.org
