Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Francisco Torres]

are less chem. used when porcessing as negaitive?

2016-01-30 7:50 GMT-04:00 Chris G :

> Hey Morgan,
>
> Yes, flashing can compensate for underexposure and lack of shadow details
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_%28cinematography%29
>
> There's also a good explanation of the process in the book Film Technology
> in Post Production. Might not be worth the effort this time, but something
> to consider.
>
> Stock solution refers to the non-diluted chemistry, with D-76 it's (most
> often) used as 1:1 developer to water ratio. In general terms reversal
> processing requires higher contrast, so using 2:1 developer to water or
> just the stock would yield higher contrast, but if you go this route I
> would do some tests first.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
> ___
> FrameWorks mailing list
> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
>
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Chris G]

Hey Morgan,

Yes, flashing can compensate for underexposure and lack of shadow details
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashing_%28cinematography%29

There's also a good explanation of the process in the book Film Technology
in Post Production. Might not be worth the effort this time, but something
to consider.

Stock solution refers to the non-diluted chemistry, with D-76 it's (most
often) used as 1:1 developer to water ratio. In general terms reversal
processing requires higher contrast, so using 2:1 developer to water or
just the stock would yield higher contrast, but if you go this route I
would do some tests first.



Chris
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Scott Dorsey]

If you want to just process it as negative, follow the directions on
the datasheet.  It is designed for that and works very well.
--scott
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Jason Halprin]

Here's a thread from the Film and Darkroom User forum with times/chemistry
for processing 7222 as reversal:

http://www.film-and-darkroom-user.org.uk/forum/archive/index.php/t-6026.html

-JH

Jason Halprin
jihalp...@gmail.com
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Morgan Hoyle-Combs]

Hey Chris, 
What do you mean by flashing? Hitting it with light before I develop it? And 
what's this about using "non diluted stock solution"?
What about steps to just processing it as the negative roll?  

On Wednesday, January 27, 2016 7:47 AM, Chris G  wrote:
 

 Hi,

D-76 as a reversal developer for *222 will probably be too low in contrast. One 
method you may want to look into is using the stock solution (non-diluted) and 
processing at a higher temperature to yield greater contrast. Generally 
speaking higher concentrations of B developers = more contrast. 

On the chemistry side you may consider adding a bit more Hydroquinone and/or 
adding Potassium Bromide for increasing contrast/reducing fog. D-19 had more 
Hydroquinone in it and was a preferred high-contrast developer for home 
reversal processing. D-76 has no restrainer, so the Bromide should help in 
clearing things up a bit. Both are widely available through Photographer's 
Formulary and their distributors (Adorama, B, Freestyle, Amazon, etc..). 

You could also do some tests with flashing the film to compensate for the lower 
ISO, this can be done after film has been exposed as long as it's before it has 
been processed. Either way I believe the film is/will be underexposed. I think 
you'll either have to flash the film or push it. Flashing might keep it from 
getting as grainy as push processing, but I'm just speculating as I've never 
done it.  

Keep us posted on your results, I have a bunch of 7222 sitting around myself.

Chris

___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks


  ___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Chris G]

Hi,

D-76 as a reversal developer for *222 will probably be too low in contrast.
One method you may want to look into is using the stock solution
(non-diluted) and processing at a higher temperature to yield greater
contrast. Generally speaking higher concentrations of B developers = more
contrast.

On the chemistry side you may consider adding a bit more Hydroquinone
and/or adding Potassium Bromide for increasing contrast/reducing fog. D-19
had more Hydroquinone in it and was a preferred high-contrast developer for
home reversal processing. D-76 has no restrainer, so the Bromide should
help in clearing things up a bit. Both are widely available through
Photographer's Formulary and their distributors (Adorama, B, Freestyle,
Amazon, etc..).

You could also do some tests with flashing the film to compensate for the
lower ISO, this can be done after film has been exposed as long as it's
before it has been processed. Either way I believe the film is/will be
underexposed. I think you'll either have to flash the film or push it.
Flashing might keep it from getting as grainy as push processing, but I'm
just speculating as I've never done it.

Keep us posted on your results, I have a bunch of 7222 sitting around
myself.

Chris
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Jason Halprin]

To quote Robert Houlihan from a 2008 post on cinematography.com:

"We have run XX22 as reversal before, if run and shot normal (as 200iso) it
comes out very dark and muddy, you need to rate it as 50iso and or dump as
much light on as possible and run it in the reversal chemistry as a push 2
to get a relatively thick exposure, it will be nasty and grainy but if that
is what you are looking for... it is possible and we have run it here at
Cinelab you just need to have your lab run it as a push 2..."

(full thread here: http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=29949)

Any negative B (or even color) stock can be processed as reversal, but
require more initial exposure, something like 1.5-2 stops.

Hopefully someone on this list can give you a good estimate regarding
developing times & chemistry for 7222 (and a re-rated ISO), but if not, I
would test with a 1st developer time starting around the push-2 time
described above.

Good Luck,
Jason Halprin
jihalp...@gmail.com
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Re: [Frameworks] Hello - Curious about Double X 7222 reversal

[Jason Halprin]

Well, that would mean that you were approx 2 stops underexposed, so you
could try for a push-4 in the 1st developer, which is a little off the
charts. It might be worth shooting another roll with the same exposures
(rate at ISO 200, meter and expose according to the meter), and then test
development times using 10 ft strips. That would really be the only way to
know for sure, as a push-4 means your exposure was in the toe-area of the
characteristic curve (underexposed, ie most of what you exposed for would
be in the shadow area under regular development - you would only see
highlights as mid-tones, and mid-tones as shadow, shadows as full black).

What chemistry are you trying to use? I can try to lookup times for regular
processing (as reversal) and extrapolate from there.

-Jason Halprin

Jason Halprin
jihalp...@gmail.com

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:59 PM, Morgan Hoyle-Combs 
wrote:

> Well, the thing is I've already shot some indoors using a sekonic light
> meter. The ISO was 200 so I opened it up all the way to 1.9 and shot
> everything from 8 to 16 fps in the hopes to absorb more light. There were
> even moments I shot everything with a hand crank.
>
> Perhaps I would need clarification on what I should do next?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
___
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks