From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Fri Jun 12 2009 - 10:07:13 PDT
Jeffrey,
So you are saying that the grey base of track neg. stock is not
subject to chemical lightening.
That grey look then is not simply a partial exposure. Was that
always the case even on older track neg stocks?
Mostly I was thinking of recycling already used material with track
already processed.
Incidentally, what might the track sound like after some paint falls
on it? instant avant garde sound composition....lol. hmmmm. I think
my next film may already be in the works here.....
In any case your point is well taken: that for printing or transfer
the light can be adjusted accordingly.
To my naked eye the dimming of this stock base does not look totally
unusable for projection as well, maybe for certain instances. How bad
could it be? Just a bit dimmer....
Theoretically, not that it impacts the visual area of the frame, one
could chemically remove the already exposed and process track area,
at least for B&W. (eg. using the chemistry you mentioned in your
earlier post).
Color film track neg, of course, has the same orange backing as the
regular color neg film stock, is it also dimmed down in the base?
Hadn't ever noticed that.
Myron
On Jun 12, 2009, at 3:55 AM, JEFFREY PAULL wrote:
> Hi, Myron,
>
> On Thu 11/06/09 16:22 , Myron Ort email suppressed sent:
>> We talked of the chemistry doing this for b&w film, but what will
>> remove opacity from a color print without removing the emulsion?
>> Any info on this one?
>>
>> Unreel the film over the entire backyard or roof, and let the sun
>> hit it all summer.
>
> No, actually, I don't know of anything, which explains that
> particular silence in my text.
>
> - Jeffrey P.
>
>
>
> None of the following helps, but . . .
> I remember there were chemicals you could use (or buy) that
> lightened a colour film's individual dye layers to colour-shift,
> or lighten underexposed slides. I think they turned the colour dyes
> into their leuco variations which were colourless.
> and if I remember correctly, this is what's happening when dyes
> fade in the usual way.
> These chemicals may have only worked on Kodachrome film which has a
> different dye structure from all others.
>
> Until colour film really took over in the '60s, photography had
> been enhanced by the ongoing labours of amateur darkroom workers
> everywhere,
> and hundreds of small companies making cheap specialized gear and
> packaged chemicals.
> These photo proto-nerds put tiny ads in, and published their
> discoveries in the magazines of the era, and they knew their
> chemistry and how to manipulate molecules.
> Gone.
> And now most of that photo infrastructure is gone, and access to
> that information is also gone.
>
> Knowing that almost all film has been colour film for a long time now,
> and that's just about all there is to begin a project with, I'll
> keep cooking on it.
>
> A guy named Patrick Dignan published a lot of this sort of stuff,
> see if Google helps give you leads.
>
> But probably the only feasable thing to do nowadays is buy so-
> called "lightstruck" leader,
> or B&W print stock - even from a lab that's still doing B&W - and
> dunk it directly in photo fixer to remove the silver halides
> and wind up with transparent film with gelatine coating intact.
> B&W soundtrack stock works too, but it usually has a grey plastic
> base which holds back some of the light.
> This makes direct projection of original dimmer, but if you're
> using it as original to be printed,
> the lab can use a different light to compensate.
>
>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
>
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.