Motion Picture Film Used As Stills. Post Results Here.

[faberryman]

But as I understand now, we need to worry about the remaining <1%. Apparently veritable horrors may be lurking in those margins. Our negatives may spontaneously combust, disintegrate or start a new sectarian movement that retreats to the Columbian jungle while luring other negatives and prints with them.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy of reducto ad absurdum.

 

[faberryman]

FWIW, I've always used plain old lye for "sodium hydroxide, anhydrous" when mixing Parodinal, and gotten very good results. According to the label, it's above 99% sodium hydroxide. It's available in supermarkets in some regions (or was a few years ago) under the Red Devil brand and also as a store brand in some chains. Last time I looked, though, it wasn't at my local Food Lion, so I ordered a can of whatever brand from Amazon.

The least expensive sodium hydroxide (lye) I found on Amazon is $11.30 for 16oz. That same 16oz of sodium hydroxide is $9.99 from ArtCraft. Of course, if you have an Amazon Prime membership, you get free two-day shipping, so that may be the deciding factor.

 

[Donald Qualls]

But as I understand now, we need to worry about the remaining <1%.

You can worry if you like. If/when I start handling remjet films, I'll likely use the same "not Red Devil" lye to make up PB-2 that I use (and have used, under the original brand, since 2005) to make Parodinal. The 1% of the one gram per liter of lye that goes into that bath doesn't seem likely to include enough of anything terrible enough to cost me what little hair I have left worrying about it.

 

[koraks]

distilled dihydrogen monoxide

But that's likely not what you're using. It's what you may think you're using, but in all likelihood isn't.

This is a good example of the logical fallacy of reducto ad absurdum.

Yes. The example was yours, though. I just followed through on it.

The least expensive sodium hydroxide (lye) I found on Amazon is $11.30 for 16oz.

Out of curiosity I checked the store I usually get mine from. €2,99 per 500g.

You can worry if you like.

Oh, I don't

I'm used to it though. Every time the issue of supermarket-chemistry comes up, there's bound to be someone to raise their finger stating that people shouldn't be doing it, you're running all manner of risks, things might go wrong, blah blah blah. In reality, the stuff of course works just fine.

They ARE the 1%.

 

[Donald Qualls]

In reality, the stuff of course works just fine.

Of course it does. The very first from-scratch photo chemical I mixed was Caffenol, using sodium carbonate sold for laundry use (including some annoying scent that does nothing to improve the smell of Caffenol).

 

[koraks]

some annoying scent that does nothing to improve the smell of Caffenol

It's one of those things the smell of which cannot possibly be improved. And no, that's not a good thing

 

[faberryman]

And then there is this question I asked but got lost in the discussion of using driveway cleaner for remjet removal and using grocery store and home center products for photographic purposes:

Anyone here using an 81B filter for the tungsten balanced cine films, or are you just fixing it in post?

 

[lamerko]

81B will drop 300K (81A will warm by 200K). Not necessarily for tungsten light. I would use these filters more on films balanced for daylight (5500K) in cloudy weather or when I'm just looking for a warming effect. They can also be combined with an 85B filter, which I would use with tungsten balanced film in daylight. All my filters are round thread 52mm which matches a range of Nikon lenses - very convenient.

 

[faberryman]

Every time the issue of supermarket-chemistry comes up, there's bound to be someone to raise their finger stating that people shouldn't be doing it, you're running all manner of risks, things might go wrong, blah blah blah. In reality, the stuff of course works just fine.

I have never said you shouldn't use grocery store and home center products for photographic purposes if you are careful not to obtain such products that contain extraneous ingredients which may have an impact on you results. What I have expressed is that I don't understand the attraction for doing so. You have mentioned convenience. I suppose cost is another. Yet there seems to be something else at play.

One reason something else seems at play is that I frequently see threads asking what is the best camera, what is the best lens, what is the best camera bag, etc., and those threads are juxtaposed with threads asking what is the cheapest film, what is the cheapest enlarging paper, what are the cheapest processing chemicals, etc.. I guess if you are vigilant about getting the cheapest materials, then you can afford the best equipment, but the two don't seem to go hand in hand. And then there are those prefer old folders, expired film and paper, and processing chemicals from grocery stores and home centers, and the end results appear to be beside the point. Seems more like a lifestyle choice than anything. I don't shoot Leica or Hasselblad, but I do use the best materials I can afford. All different aspects to the hobby I guess.

 

[faberryman]

81B will drop 300K (81A will warm by 200K). Not necessarily for tungsten light. I would use these filters more on films balanced for daylight (5500K) in cloudy weather or when I'm just looking for a warming effect. They can also be combined with an 85B filter, which I would use with tungsten balanced film in daylight. All my filters are round thread 52mm which matches a range of Nikon lenses - very convenient.

Perhaps I should have ask a more more general question: Is anyone here using a filter for the tungsten balanced cine films in daylight, or are you just fixing it in post?

 

[koraks]

You have mentioned convenience. I suppose cost is another.

That sums it up for me.

 

[Cholentpot]

And then there is this question I asked but got lost in the discussion of using driveway cleaner for remjet removal and using grocery store and home center products for photographic purposes:

I used to but I realized that it takes so much work in post to get a decent scan that using a filter is just costs me a stop of light on exposure. I haven't used them in a while and I haven't noticed a difference in my final photos.

I have never said you shouldn't use grocery store and home center products for photographic purposes if you are careful not to obtain such products that contain extraneous ingredients which may have an impact on you results. What I have expressed is that I don't understand the attraction for doing so. You have mentioned convenience. I suppose cost is another. Yet there seems to be something else at play.

To be honest, I don't really care all that much if my color is life accurate or not. There are better ways to get consistent colors than using MP stock and home chemistry. I do this because I enjoy it, the camera and films are fun and the process scratches the artistic urge in my brain. I can call the inconsistencies and trouble part of my artistic intentions and feel all smug.

 

[Donald Qualls]

using a filter for the tungsten balanced cine films in daylight, or are you just fixing it in post?

I've never used color correction filters on any color film (though I haven't shot a lot of transparencies). For color negative, you can correct with filtration in printing or after the scan (if you can keep your scanner software from doing it for you). For slides, you can correct during/after scanning as well, and if you don't mix them together with those that didn't need correction, you're unlikely to notice in projection, either.

 

[xtol121]

I use driveway cleaner because it’s $10 for a lifetime of remjet removal that I could pick up at the hardware store along with paper towels, and someone on the forum mentioned it worked well. It was mostly for an experiment and it worked and it still works. There is no deeper thought involved.

I do not bother filtering 500T at capture. It filters out just fine under my enlarger with a 25 point reduction in filtration (can’t remember if it’s M or Y).

 

[lamerko]

Perhaps I should have ask a more more general question: Is anyone here using a filter for the tungsten balanced cine films in daylight, or are you just fixing it in post?

Yes, I use it. But you need 85B, not 81B. If you're using internal camera metering (through the lens), you don't need compensation. If you use an external light meter - follow the instructions on the box (for example, 500T should be measured as 320).

 

[MattKing]

I have never said you shouldn't use grocery store and home center products for photographic purposes if you are careful not to obtain such products that contain extraneous ingredients which may have an impact on you results. What I have expressed is that I don't understand the attraction for doing so. You have mentioned convenience. I suppose cost is another. Yet there seems to be something else at play.

In many parts of the world - Canada included - availability of photo-grade chemical components is inconsistent at best, and sometimes far more expensive than in the USA. There are sometimes also problems with impractical minimum order quantities.

 

[faberryman]

In many parts of the world - Canada included - availability of photo-grade chemical components is inconsistent at best, and sometimes far more expensive than in the USA. There are sometimes also problems with impractical minimum order quantities.

While those things may be true, presumably those concerns would also apply to photographic chemicals not obtainable through grocery store and home center products, rendering the mix it up yourself approach untenable in those countries.

 

[MattKing]

While those things may be true, presumably those concerns would also apply to photographic chemicals not obtainable through grocery store and home center products, rendering the mix it up yourself approach untenable in those countries.

Distribution channels and importation/environmental realities are inconsistent - particularly when the goal is accessing relatively small quantities.
If a product is available at a chain store home centre, it means that entity has gone through the effort and expense to get reasonable home size quantities of product in to their local distribution system. That is frequently impractical for individuals.
I have a friend who is a retired high school chemistry teacher. Before retirement, chemical suppliers who served the school market permitted him to open a private account for his own purchases that gave him partial access to some items in their product line. As soon as he retired, his access ended, and the suppliers would no longer sell to him under any circumstances.

 

[faberryman]

Distribution channels and importation/environmental realities are inconsistent - particularly when the goal is accessing relatively small quantities.

If a product is available at a chain store home centre, it means that entity has gone through the effort and expense to get reasonable home size quantities of product in to their local distribution system. That is frequently impractical for individuals.

I have a friend who is a retired high school chemistry teacher. Before retirement, chemical suppliers who served the school market permitted him to open a private account for his own purchases that gave him partial access to some items in their product line. As soon as he retired, his access ended, and the suppliers would no longer sell to him under any circumstances.

You live in Canada and mentioned the difficulty of obtaining photographic chemicals in Canada. Is there not a ready source(s) of photographic chemicals in reasonable quantities anywhere in Canada?

 

[snusmumriken]

Here in the UK we can buy ‘pearl’ (ie pelleted) sodium hydroxide on eBay very cheaply. It has served me well for photographic purposes, also stores well.

In lieu of any expertise in chemistry I will hazard a guess that extra ingredients in some drain cleaners might be there to prevent the stuff dissolving into a caustic puddle when stored in that damp cupboard under the sink.

 

[Donald Qualls]

extra ingredients in some drain cleaners might be there to prevent the stuff dissolving into a caustic puddle when stored in that damp cupboard under the sink.

Actually, aside from actual lye, most drain cleaners in the US are sold as a semi-liquid gel of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate (to protect pipes), sometimes with aluminum flakes to produce additional heat when the gel is diluted in the drain (it's as much the heat as the caustic action and saponification of fat that does the work). AFAIK, there is nothing you can add to anhydrous sodium hydroxide to prevent it absorbing carbon dioxide and water from the air and deliquescing; this is why the stuff is generally sold in an airtight, reclosable container (used to be a metal can, now a plastic one, either way with a very tight push-in cap).

 

[koraks]

AFAIK, there is nothing you can add to anhydrous sodium hydroxide to prevent it absorbing carbon dioxide and water from the air and deliquescing

I suspect this is the reason why it's commonly sold in pellet form here. I'm not sure if the pellets are coated with anything - if they are, it's something I've never found to interfere with photo chemistry. But it does make the pellets dissolve slower than a powder or flakes, and the result is mostly a significant improvement in handling safety of the material.

 

[MattKing]

You live in Canada and mentioned the difficulty of obtaining photographic chemicals in Canada. Is there not a ready source(s) of photographic chemicals in reasonable quantities anywhere in Canada?

Argentix in Montreal has some things. Flic Film has some things.
Some things can be imported from places like Artcraft - but not everything can be shipped/exported.
Industrial quantities are apparently available to industrial users, but small enough for individual use quantities are problematic.
Most of the world is very different from the USA!

 

[faberryman]

Argentix in Montreal has some things. Flic Film has some things.
Some things can be imported from places like Artcraft - but not everything can be shipped/exported.
Industrial quantities are apparently available to industrial users, but small enough for individual use quantities are problematic.
Most of the world is very different from the USA!

Sounds like a photographic wasteland, with Canadian photographers forced to buy products from grocery stores and home centers just to develop their film. I wonder if they have considered purchasing name brand photographic solutions? Argentix, which you mentioned, appears to carry a wide selection.

 

[Brad Deputy]

Sounds like a photographic wasteland, with Canadian photographers forced to buy products from grocery stores and home centers just to develop their film. I wonder if they have considered purchasing name brand photographic solutions? Argentix which you mentioned appears to carry a wide selection.

Depends where you live, I guess. Vancouver is awash in photographic stores which seem to carry just about anything you can find state-side. Pre-packaged developers, that is; Not sure about raw chemicals.