ASA/ISO 1.6 (that's one dot six) speed film? What the ?????

[dmr]

Anyone ever tried this? Anyone even heard of it? I'm always game for trying new films but this one kinda threw me. I almost thought it was a stale April 1 joke!

Dead Link Removed

Sunny-16 exposure would be 1.6 seconds!

 

[locutus]

wouldn't that be 1/1.6th?

with a lens at f/1.4 that still comes out to about daylight exposures between 1/60th and 1/100th, you could in theory shoot this handheld.

 

[FilmCurlCom]

This is actually an intermediate film usually used in film productions, that the guys at FPP just cut down to short 135 rolls.
I have used it several times, check out what it says on the catridge, it's Kodak 2254:
KODAK VISION3 Color Digital Intermediate Film 2254/5254.

This one, 2254, has no rem-jet so at least you do not need to handle that as a separate step.
You can get very sharp images with it and I didn't actually need that long exposures as you stated.
However, be aware that my rolls did NOT have 36 frames or even 30 as they sometimes do, but only 24!
Considering this, it's very expensive, plus you won't even have the right chemistry for it, C-41 is not correct, even when using RA-4 as dev, you get weird colors.

The film base looks VERY orange/red compared to the more brownish of "normal" negative film.
You can use the film for weird experiments or as I did as "microfilm", to film-out documents onto it, as it has a good resolution.
But don't expect "normal" photos with it in C-41.

You save a lot of money by trying to get short ends of that film from labs and by just putting it in 135 catridges yourself.

Bernhard

 

[fdonadio]

It's there in the link posted:

Kodak Super Low Speed (35mm) is a low-speed duplicating film, highly sought to shoot in still cameras and is intended for making digital dupes in motion picture film labs.

Emphasis mine...

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Which is what I have said already above, it's a film meant for labs, not for shooting and definately not made for C-41 chemistry.
Also I wonder about the "highly sought" part, as I said, it does not give you pleasing results, unless you want some strange off colors.
But for that, why would you want to use such a comparable expensive film with only 24 frames each and the problem of shooting at ISO 1.6?

I have bought 4 of them myself some time ago, shot one and haven't used the others yet as the results were not that great with the chemistry I had at hand.

Bernhard

 

[Les Sarile]

Bernhard, How are you evaluating the results?

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Two ways, I look at the negatives after developing and compare them to what others look like and then I scan them and look at the results as well.
It's of course no scientific analysis nor an actual measurement with a lab device, but that doesn't matter in this case:
If I can get nice images out of most negative films always using the same scanning techniques and cannot with this one we talk about here, then logicically there's something off with this one.
Besides normal photos with a camera, I also "filmed-out" (rephotographed images from a screen) and also contact-printed ECN-2 negatives onto the film, there at least I have control of the source image and can compare it with the resulting one. These techniques worked reasonably well with other films but not with this one here. Based on these results I can say that in C-41 the colors you will get are off.

Bernhard

 

[fdonadio]

Which is what I have said already above, it's a film meant for labs, not for shooting and definately not made for C-41 chemistry.

I am not sure if it's an ECP-2 or ECN-2 film, as I haven't read the specifications. Cross-development always causes color deviations.

 

[removed account4]

It's there in the link posted:

Kodak Super Low Speed (35mm) is a low-speed duplicating film, highly sought to shoot in still cameras and is intended for making digital dupes in motion picture film labs

Emphasis mine...

if that is the case it is like SO-132 which was single step duplicating film
http://125px.com/docs/film/kodak/f11-Duplicating_SO-132.pdf
i used to use it to make duplicate negatives, it needed a a high wattage bulb to contact print the negatives

no clue why this film would be "highly sought to shoot in still cameras"
the negatives always had a funky tint to them

 

[locutus]

Maybe the funky tint is what people like, the samples on the sales page have quite a interesting colour palette.

 

[Les Sarile]

Bernhard, What scanner+software did you use? Can you post any unedited samples? TIA.

 

[dmr]

Here's a guy who actually did some decent night shots with this:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nenzen/albums/72157661227130783

 

[fdonadio]

I would like to try some ridiculously low ISO film to shoot some seascapes and have the sea completely flat, etc.

 

[Les Sarile]

I would like to try some ridiculously low ISO film to shoot some seascapes and have the sea completely flat, etc.

I suppose it depends on just how turbulent the waves are but here it only took about ten minutes to calm the waters using Fuji 100 color film with the Pentax LX on aperture priority mode . . .

 

[removed account4]

I would like to try some ridiculously low ISO film to shoot some seascapes and have the sea completely flat, etc.

there is a group of people over on flikr and probably other places and they
buy a cheap welder's mask and use that as a filter. i don't know how many stops it is
but it will give you excessively slow exposures and looks kind of fun. and useful if you weld
or do UV exposures ...

 

[fdonadio]

I suppose it depends on just how turbulent the waves are but here it only took about ten minutes to calm the waters using Fuji 100 color film

cheap welder's mask and use that as a filter.

Yes, I could use ND filters too. But I was just trying to come up with a use for the emulsion we're talking about.

And I forgot to say: shoot some seascapes on a sunny day and still have exposure time long enough to get the sea flat.

One can also take pictures of a busy place and make it look desert.

And whatever else anyone can come up with.

 

[trendland]

This is actually an intermediate film usually used in film productions, that the guys at FPP just cut down to short 135 rolls.
I have used it several times, check out what it says on the catridge, it's Kodak 2254:
KODAK VISION3 Color Digital Intermediate Film 2254/5254.

This one, 2254, has no rem-jet so at least you do not need to handle that as a separate step.
You can get very sharp images with it and I didn't actually need that long exposures as you stated.
However, be aware that my rolls did NOT have 36 frames or even 30 as they sometimes do, but only 24!
Considering this, it's very expensive, plus you won't even have the right chemistry for it, C-41 is not correct, even when using RA-4 as dev, you get weird colors.

The film base looks VERY orange/red compared to the more brownish of "normal" negative film.
You can use the film for weird experiments or as I did as "microfilm", to film-out documents onto it, as it has a good resolution.
But don't expect "normal" photos with it in C-41.

You save a lot of money by trying to get short ends of that film from labs and by just putting it in 135 catridges yourself.

Bernhard

Well - Bernhard, that is indeed a big
truth. To save much money by getting
short ends of this film - before FPP have
identified this stuff.

The next big truth is (notice FPP prices)
that these guys make a lot of money with
their special "creations". For me it is
unbelievable or let me say: I realy don't
like these guys from FPP.
It is like a business in selling old water in a desert. HOPE HERE IS COMMING A BIG RAIN FROM KODAK - very soon pls. !!

with regards

 

[trendland]

there is a group of people over on flikr and probably other places and they
buy a cheap welder's mask and use that as a filter. i don't know how many stops it is
but it will give you excessively slow exposures and looks kind of fun. and useful if you weld
or do UV exposures ...

There is one ND 2000 with is indeed not very cheap : Lensinghouse F-stopper Pro
$ 199,- I decided against it.

A double Pol Filter solution may be the
smarter choise compared to cheap welder's masks.
Or - if you'll find a friendly welder (holding the mask 20 min.) ?

with regards

 

[dmr]

But wait! There's more!

I did not see this on the FPP site, but apparently it recently existed. ISO 0.8!

Surf here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelraso/18595111752

 

[FilmCurlCom]

Well - Bernhard, that is indeed a big
truth. To save much money by getting
short ends of this film - before FPP have
identified this stuff.

The next big truth is (notice FPP prices)
that these guys make a lot of money with
their special "creations". For me it is
unbelievable or let me say: I realy don't
like these guys from FPP.
It is like a business in selling old water in a desert. HOPE HERE IS COMMING A BIG RAIN FROM KODAK - very soon pls. !!

with regards

Yeah, I fully agree with you!
Just an example, this is for ECP film, but still gives you some generic idea:
I asked nicely at my favourite lab and they sent me 22m of ECP film including shipping fees for 45€.
You need around 1.6m for 36 frames of film, appoximately 1 meter for 24 frames.
So 22m gives me 22 rolls of 1m film, 45€/22 = 2,04€ per film INCLUDING shipping, even less so if you live closer to the lab!
22€ without the shipping, so only 1€ per film WITHOUT shipping.

Now compare that 1€ without shipping to the 8.99$ = 8€ of FPP without shipping, quite a difference!
And it only takes me a few minutes to cut off the film and load it into 135 catridges whenever I want to, that's no big deal.
I don't even need to buy a bulk loader first, I can very easily just do that cutting in my darkroom or in my changing bag, both worked fine.

Bernhard

 

[trendland]

Yeah, I fully agree with you!
Just an example, this is for ECP film, but still gives you some generic idea:
I asked nicely at my favourite lab and they sent me 22m of ECP film including shipping fees for 45€.
You need around 1.6m for 36 frames of film, appoximately 1 meter for 24 frames.
So 22m gives me 22 rolls of 1m film, 45€/22 = 2,04€ per film INCLUDING shipping, even less so if you live closer to the lab!
22€ without the shipping, so only 1€ per film WITHOUT shipping.

Now compare that 1€ without shipping to the 8.99$ = 8€ of FPP without shipping, quite a difference!
And it only takes me a few minutes to cut off the film and load it into 135 catridges whenever I want to, that's no big deal.
I don't even need to buy a bulk loader first, I can very easily just do that cutting in my darkroom or in my changing bag, both worked fine.

Bernhard

Have a look on expired recans from Ebay.
If you will not see expired dates from
1997 - 2010 the risk is not very high on motion picture films with new dates : 2014,2015 for example.

with regards

 

[trendland]

Oh sorry FPP .......
I just divulged your original source...
I swear - this could never be my intention.

So to All here pls. pls. : "don't look on Ebay sides where you can by recans" !

with regards

 

[trendland]

wouldn't that be 1/1.6th?

with a lens at f/1.4 that still comes out to about daylight exposures between 1/60th and 1/100th, you could in theory shoot this handheld.

Well - locutus that is a very good exposure calculation.
But perhaps it is Not good inought.
Let us together see how it could work.

Last week I remember a sunny day :
Iso 100 f/8 1/250sec.= Iso 100 f/2.0
sek 1/4000sec.

ISO 50 = 1/2000 sec.
ISO 25 = 1/1000 sec.
ISO 12 = 1/ 500 sec.
ISO 6 = 1/ 250 sec.
ISO 3 = 1/ 125 sec.
ISO 1,5 = 1/ 60 sec.
ISO 1,2 = 1/ 50 sec.

Whow "genius " ...... locutus I doubt a little but you are totaly correct.

with compliments

 

[Bronson Dugnutt]

Anyone still shooting this stock out of their freezer? I've only shot in daylight, but exposure has big impact on the color temperature. Here are a few frames:

Bracketed negatives


Tweaked in post