The film is inherently less contrasty than C-41 film.Is there anything inherently incompatible with Kodak vision 3 film and RA-4 printmaking?
Are you then using some pre-rinse remjet step before going with C41 chemistry?Vision 3 250D in c41 EI400 and printed on ra4 works great for me. If you are referring to develop V3 in ra4 for the proper cd3, I have not tried it.
What is the film industry doing at this point with vision 3? Do they us a dup film to make a positive? Does such a film still exist?The film is inherently less contrasty than C-41 film.
And there are differences between the response of the projection stock that Vision 3 is intended to be printed on and RA-4 papers.
But differences are one thing, and incompatibilities are another.
Historically, the camera films were edited manually and then contact printed on to the projection stock.What is the film industry doing at this point with vision 3? Do they us a dup film to make a positive? Does such a film still exist?
Historically, the camera films were edited manually and then contact printed on to the projection stock.
In order for that to work, both stocks were quite low in contrast..
Historically, the camera films were edited manually and then contact printed on to the projection stock.
In order for that to work, both stocks were quite low in contrast.
Then they transitioned to scanning the camera film, editing digitally, and then film recorder printing back on to the projection stock.
.
Are you then using some pre-rinse remjet step before going with C41 chemistry?
I dont use a pre rinse. The remjet comes off by itself in the rinse cycle (4 fill shake and dumps). Bleach 6 minutes, rinse, fix 6 minutes, wash, photoflo then hang. I take a damp paper towel and wipe the backside of the film to remove any tiny amout of rj left.
I had a summer job during my college years working for a company that produced 35mm slides for universities, museums, etc. The company had a vast library of 6x9 negs of famous art and architecture. My job was to mount the neg and photograph the backlit negative some number of times to produce a set of 35mm positive slides of Monet's Water Lilies, for example. Do this for many impressionist artists and a collection of impressionist art could be sold as a set to a professor in art history class, or what have you. What I don't remember because it was about a thousand years ago is how the orange mask was dealt with. I assume we used a filter on the lens, but I just can't remember. Basically, it sounds like the same process used by the motion picture industry. Does this sound right?the tradition was a Multi step process. Camera negative printed on a "master positive" stock - positive image with an Orange mask. that was used to make Printing Negatives" which were then used to make the actual theater prints. if the printing negative were to be damaged, or worn, a fresh one could be made from the master positive.
You were probably using the same stock that the motion picture prints were made from - the same stuff that Seattle Film works used to make slides from.I had a summer job during my college years working for a company that produced 35mm slides for universities, museums, etc. The company had a vast library of 6x9 negs of famous art and architecture. My job was to mount the neg and photograph the backlit negative some number of times to produce a set of 35mm positive slides of Monet's Water Lilies, for example. Do this for many impressionist artists and a collection of impressionist art could be sold as a set to a professor in art history class, or what have you. What I don't remember because it was about a thousand years ago is how the orange mask was dealt with. I assume we used a filter on the lens, but I just can't remember. Basically, it sounds like the same process used by the motion picture industry. Does this sound right?
Got it. Thanks. Have you found the negs to be too low in contrast for your liking?
I don't know, the Seattle Film works connection doesn't sound quite right. I'm pretty sure we used 100 ft bulk rolls of 35mm film. This seems right because each of us (there were two of us) would use about one bulk roll in the morning and one in the afternoon. We would shoot maybe 1/2 dozen negatives before lunch and another 1/2 dozen after lunch. I recall we make 100 copies. Or maybe we would shoot two bulk rolls during each session. Anyway, the film was processed on site, it wasn't mailed off.You were probably using the same stock that the motion picture prints were made from - the same stuff that Seattle Film works used to make slides from.
It had the advantage (for your employer) of not being very long lasting!
Did Kodak produce a negative film without an Orange mask?
The floor might be bluer, but the skin tones look great. In fact, the overall photo is great.I have used Cinestill 800 in 120 format from their kickstarter, which is Kodak Vision3 500T with remjet removed, exposed to ISO 1600 under tungsten lightning, pushed in C41 chemistry and then scanned and also printed optically in Fuji CA DPII with RA4 chemistry. I can say that results this way are still a bit on low contrast and low saturation side but color balance is suprisingly good even not completely spot on, but I think sometimes led lightning is the one to blame for this.
One example, the floor is bluer on the print:
Did Kodak produce a negative film without an Orange mask? I did this work during the summer of 1986, but the company I worked for has been in business for years. It was so established that they might have produced essentially ALL of the worlds slides for universities/museum gift shops..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?