The old school workflow of workprint/conform/let the lab do the rest was premised on making a number of release prints from the conformed original. I’m assuming Esperanza asked her question because she wants to project the work from photochemical film for some reason, not digitally. The question then is where and how it will be screened. It would be fairly rare these days for artist-film makers to just send out photochemical projection prints by themselves. More often, the maker may be touring with their own copy of the work, and not need more than one print at a time (until they wear out, if that’s a concern…).
Esperanza didn’t mention how many cuts, or of what length, she anticaptes making from the original sequence on the neg. If there are lots of cuts, or some very short shots, I’d probably still go with editing workprint yourself (if you can borrow time on a flatbed or bench) then getting someone to conform the negative to A&B roll. But if there are only a few cuts, and none of the clips are too short, another ‘cheap and easy’ option would be to leave the negative intact, get a good quality positive print (the exiting workprint might do, depending on what stock was used, and whether or not any color/exposure timing is desired)workprint, and then cut that (carefully) as desired with tape splices. Then once a ‘final cut’ is reached, just make sure each splice is taped on both sides, clean aligned with the frameline and tight, and then you could project that. If it’s not going to be shown a lot, it wouldn’t be too much of a pain to do that again if the first print wears out, using the edge numbers as a guide. Of course, there’d be the usual bubbles etc. visiblebe on the screen at the edit points, but that may not be objectionable, depending on the work/audience.maker… Just another option… _______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
