Recent content by kino-eye

By "this creates..." I meant "removing the remjet layer ... creates...." But yes, I can see how it could be confused to mean "processing as C-41 ... creates," so thanks for clarifying.

Ah right, that's certainly the easier way to go about it—but I assume the result is the same? There's an interesting comparison of Cinestill 800T as C-41 vs Kodak 500T processed in ECN-2 here. In addition to the extra halation, it looks like the former has increased contrast, shifted colors, and...

For tungsten balanced film in particular, I believe there's only Kodak 200T and 500T Vision3 movie film. Repackagers include Cinestill, Flic Film, Film Photography Project, Film Speed Lab, Silbersalz. Note that out of the box Kodak Vision3 needs to be processed as ECN-2 (not C-41), and you might...

Cross-processing aside, I imagine the cool look in the first examples also relies on tungsten-balanced film (as Pieter12 suggests). I don't know what the default studio lighting would have been for a high end fashion shoot at the time (flash and/or photofloods, or something else, along with gels...

I've seen it claimed that Aerocolor has increased red saturation to counteract the haze typical with aerial photography. The B&H description also claims "its design also provides 30nm-longer red sensitivity than previous aerial films for increased haze penetration and foliage reproduction, as...

Agreed, start here before chasing down other gremlins. I have used a tripod and remote release (app on my phone) with good results. A copy stand is more convenient for faster set up and take down, but not required if you're careful. You don't specify which lens you're using, but the softness...

Are you using an extension ring? You need one: a Canon APSC 3:2 sensor needs ~0.62x (1:1.62) magnification (greater than 0.5x, or 1:2) to fill the sensor with a 135 frame. (Sony/Nikon/Fuji APSC sensor is slightly larger, and needs ~0.65x [1:1.54].) According to this online calculator you need a...

Smooth transaction and well packed. Thanks Adam!

Thanks! Been lurking awhile but happy to join the conversation.

That is a good point about sharpness. And yes, T&A also make a similar point about larger formats (p. 3): larger negatives automatically have finer grain, lower micro contrast, and "smoother gradation." But what is counterintuitive to me is the claim that t-grain films have finer grain but...

I’m curious what people think of the dim view of t-grain films taken by Troop and Anchell in the Film Developing Cookbook (1998), pp. 14–15. In an aside, they call them “inferior” and chalk them up to the need to reduce silver content by penny-pinching manufacturers. That seems a bit hyperbolic...