Jump to content


Photo

Accidentally shot some old PlusX 50ASA


  • Please log in to reply
21 replies to this topic

#1 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 18 October 2009 - 03:23 PM

A friend of mine gave me a frozen batch of PlusX 16mm. I shot one roll for a project I need some B&W for... but didn't notice untill unloading it into the box that it was the old stuff (pre 04) 50ASA. It has been kept frozen so i'm not too worried about age. I'm more concerned about the processing (i'm almost sure it's the same) and pushing it one stop since I rated it at 100ASA. I got a lot of nice shots that I hope to not have to reshoot... anyone know what I can expect, or if i can even process the old stuff?
  • 0

#2 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1583 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 18 October 2009 - 07:00 PM

A friend of mine gave me a frozen batch of PlusX 16mm. I shot one roll for a project I need some B&W for... but didn't notice untill unloading it into the box that it was the old stuff (pre 04) 50ASA. It has been kept frozen so i'm not too worried about age. I'm more concerned about the processing (i'm almost sure it's the same) and pushing it one stop since I rated it at 100ASA. I got a lot of nice shots that I hope to not have to reshoot... anyone know what I can expect, or if i can even process the old stuff?



It should be fine and process ok you might ask for a push 1 for it I would not go further as it might just turn it muddier. Were you shooting outdoors? or under controlled lighting?

-Rob-
  • 0

#3 Charles MacDonald

Charles MacDonald
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1157 posts
  • Other
  • Stittsville Ontario Canada

Posted 18 October 2009 - 07:45 PM

A friend of mine gave me a frozen batch of PlusX 16mm. I'm more concerned about the processing (i'm almost sure it's the same) and pushing it one stop since I rated it at 100ASA.


Part of the anouncement when the new version came out indicated that the OLD film would also have to be shot at 100ASA in the NEW developer.

Kodak never really explained the "WHY" of the change in the film, the chemical change was to do with making a less nasty bleach.

You may want to check with the customer care folks at your lab, to see if you need to specify a Push.
  • 0

#4 Fran Kuhn

Fran Kuhn
  • Sustaining Members
  • 352 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 October 2009 - 07:50 PM

Anthony,

I'd be a little cautious with a push, especially with 16mm. If you are only one stop under, it might be better to ask the lab what they think before committing to a push. The only thing pushing will do is raise the highlights relative to the shadows and increase the contrast (and grain). It will not add additional shadow detail if none was captured in the first place. It might be better to run it normal and play with the exposure and contrast in the transfer.

-Fran
  • 0

#5 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 18 October 2009 - 08:17 PM

I shot it in overcast daylight. When I called the lab, they didn't give me much info other than they could run the emulsion through the current process... but not how it will react on the film.
  • 0

#6 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 18 October 2009 - 09:57 PM

I presume you are talking about the b/w reversal stock, not negative.

According to Kodak, both the old version and the new version of the stock should be rated at 100EI for the new process (which I think all labs are using now). Your stock says 50 because it was manufactured before the new process was introduced.

So your exposure is correct. Don't even think about push-processing.
  • 0

#7 Anthony Schilling

Anthony Schilling
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1053 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • Portland, OR

Posted 18 October 2009 - 11:36 PM

I presume you are talking about the b/w reversal stock, not negative.

According to Kodak, both the old version and the new version of the stock should be rated at 100EI for the new process (which I think all labs are using now). Your stock says 50 because it was manufactured before the new process was introduced.

So your exposure is correct. Don't even think about push-processing.

Yes, the reversal. Thanks for the valuable info. I'll send it out on Tues for normal process and hope for decent results. I did like the old PlusX. Hopefully the freeze kept it honest-
  • 0

#8 Robert Houllahan

Robert Houllahan
  • Sustaining Members
  • 1583 posts
  • Industry Rep
  • Providence R.I.

Posted 19 October 2009 - 11:15 PM

[quote name='Dominic Case' date='Oct 18 2009, 10:57 PM' post='302939'

According to Kodak, both the old version and the new version of the stock should be rated at 100EI for the new process (which I think all labs are using now). Your stock says 50 because it was manufactured before the new process was introduced.
[/quote]


This was before my time working in the lab, me thinks.... was this change related to the Potassium Permanganate bleach change? or some other chemistry changeover?

-Rob-
  • 0

#9 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 20 October 2009 - 04:14 PM

This was before my time working in the lab, me thinks.... was this change related to the Potassium Permanganate bleach change? or some other chemistry changeover?

-Rob-


Rob: Yeah, it was when Kodak phased out the Potassium Dichromate R-9 bleach in favor of permanganate.

Despite my familiarity, at least on an amateur level, with B&W reversal processing, I am at a loss as to why there'd be a corresponding speed change. I hear that the process change forced some B&W reversal labs out of business (forget the name, but therer was one in Washington state IIRC) because the new chemistry, while more environmentally benign, was harsher on some of the older processing equipment.

Further, I hear the results of the old R-9 bleach are better than those obtainable with permanganate. It's just that dichromate is more of an environmental issue that Kodak phased it out, as part of their greener image campaign.

I also hear that Plus-X is still a true 50, but that the new speed is due to something comparable to a one-stop push, not an actual redesign or speed increase.
  • 0

#10 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 20 October 2009 - 05:25 PM

I am at a loss as to why there'd be a corresponding speed change.

I believe the bleaching agent can have a slight effect in de-sensitising the unexposed silver halide crystals. This results in a lighter image after re-exposure and second development.

You could argue (quite successfully) that this is more akin to increased first development (leaving less silver halide for the final, reversed image), than to a genuine increase in sensitivity of the emulsion.

Both dichromate and permanganate are oxidising agents, and so present fire hazards. (In fact Permanganate is a much stronger oxidiser, used in many explosives.) But dichromate is also known to be a carcinogen, which is the main reason it was replaced. It's not the only chemical used in the photographic process that is a hazard one way or the other though.
  • 0

#11 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 20 October 2009 - 05:58 PM

This results in a lighter image after re-exposure and second development.


How is the re-exposure done? Do you have a highly controlled light source shining onto the wet film? I remember hearing somewhere that it could also be done chemically.






-- J.S.
  • 0

#12 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1406 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 21 October 2009 - 02:18 AM

Correct, you have the two ways. Light is cheaper, much better environmentally, and as even as a chemical treatment. The chemical way is common with the color reversal processes.
  • 0

#13 Brian Pritchard

Brian Pritchard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Other
  • Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Posted 21 October 2009 - 02:32 AM

How is the re-exposure done? Do you have a highly controlled light source shining onto the wet film? I remember hearing somewhere that it could also be done chemically.

-- J.S.

Actually the re-exposure is not terribly critical as long as you give sufficient exposure. Excessive re-exposure, such as sunlight, will cause loss of density.

The problem with chemical reversal agents is that they can be a menace in a processing laboratory as they will fog all films if the solution or the dust come into contact with other films.
Brian
  • 0

#14 Brian Pritchard

Brian Pritchard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Other
  • Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Posted 21 October 2009 - 05:13 AM

Actually the re-exposure is not terribly critical as long as you give sufficient exposure. Excessive re-exposure, such as sunlight, will cause loss of density.

The problem with chemical reversal agents is that they can be a menace in a processing laboratory as they will fog all films if the solution or the dust come into contact with other films.
Brian

If my memory serves me correctly we used 2 x 100 watt lamps for our B/W Reversal process. One is sufficient but, of course with a continuous processing machine you cannot take the risk that the lamp fails so you have two lamps.

I also remember making up RA-1 (Reversal Additive) for our ME-4 process and having to wear a full face mask and gloves because it was so dangerous. I believe that it comes as a solution now rather than the tablets we had to dissolve.
Brian
  • 0

#15 Bill DiPietra

Bill DiPietra
  • Sustaining Members
  • 2339 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • New York City

Posted 21 October 2009 - 08:10 AM

A friend of mine gave me a frozen batch of PlusX 16mm. I shot one roll for a project I need some B&W for... but didn't notice untill unloading it into the box that it was the old stuff (pre 04) 50ASA. It has been kept frozen so i'm not too worried about age. I'm more concerned about the processing (i'm almost sure it's the same) and pushing it one stop since I rated it at 100ASA. I got a lot of nice shots that I hope to not have to reshoot... anyone know what I can expect, or if i can even process the old stuff?


Anthony,

I am just completed a 16mm film using 7231 and I metered the entire thing for 50ASA, had it processed normally and it came it great. I wouldn't worry about it.
  • 0

#16 Dominic Case

Dominic Case
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1357 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney Australia

Posted 21 October 2009 - 04:54 PM

I also remember making up RA-1 (Reversal Additive) for our ME-4 process

We had our CRI (colour reversal intermediate) processing machine at the other end of the building from the neg & pos processors, (admittedly because it was built later, but the cross-contamination was an issue) and while most solutions were mixed in a common mixing tank, we had a separate one for the second developer. Even so, I can remember contamination happened occasionally. It was enough to dip a finger in the colour developer and then into the first developer (a drop or two in a couple of hundred litres).
  • 0

#17 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 21 October 2009 - 07:24 PM

We had our CRI (colour reversal intermediate) processing machine at the other end of the building ....


I remember that Dick Stumpf of Universal was very strongly opposed to the CRI process -- so much so that they were called "Unreversal Pictures" .... ;-)





-- J.S.
  • 0

#18 Brian Pritchard

Brian Pritchard
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 328 posts
  • Other
  • Stoke-on-Trent, UK

Posted 22 October 2009 - 02:54 AM

I remember that Dick Stumpf of Universal was very strongly opposed to the CRI process -- so much so that they were called "Unreversal Pictures" .... ;-)





-- J.S.

He was quite right as it turns out. CRI was/is one of the biggest disasters of motion picture history. As well as being the most difficult process to run, streaks were very common, the majority of CRI's are nearly or actually unusable because of fading. You also lost the extra safety of having an interpos and a dupe negative. Not one of Kodak's best ideas!
Brian
  • 0

#19 John Sprung

John Sprung
  • Sustaining Members
  • 4635 posts
  • Other

Posted 22 October 2009 - 12:49 PM

Hmmm..... Given that CRI was that bad, what about reversal as camera original stock? It was quite common when I was in film school. ECO was thought to be better than 7254 or even 7247. TV news was 16mm reversal at the time, so the stuff was plentiful.





-- J.S.
  • 0

#20 Leo Anthony Vale

Leo Anthony Vale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2010 posts
  • Other
  • Pittsburgh PA

Posted 22 October 2009 - 05:25 PM

He was quite right as it turns out. CRI was/is one of the biggest disasters of motion picture history. As well as being the most difficult process to run, streaks were very common, the majority of CRI's are nearly or actually unusable because of fading. You also lost the extra safety of having an interpos and a dupe negative. Not one of Kodak's best ideas!
Brian


I believe it was developed (as in R&D) by Kodak France.

In its defense, it has the most attractive fiery orange base color.
  • 0


Visual Products

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Abel Cine

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Ritter Battery

Willys Widgets

The Slider

CineTape

Rig Wheels Passport

Abel Cine

Ritter Battery

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Opal

Metropolis Post

Glidecam

Aerial Filmworks

CineLab

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineTape

Paralinx LLC

The Slider

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio