Re: Just watched [1]/

From: Myron Ort (email suppressed)
Date: Sun Jun 14 2009 - 11:02:28 PDT


Stay tuned, I am hoping to have the site somewhat updated in the next
couple of weeks. There are now a total of 6 dvd volumes of my films
from the 60s/70s. I think I will adjust the clips to be smaller for
computer screens, your point about surrounding with black is well

I am in the middle of an awkward transition both between the analog
and digital avenues of dissemination as well as coming out of
“retirement” and becoming an active filmmaker again. Much of my
current work is now starting life on 35mm formats. Big fun! And the
sense of going back to the early roots. The older work was both 16mm
and 8mm. I have much to learn and explore regarding the use of
digital technologies. I recently attended a showing which used both a
digital projector and a 16mm projector. I found both engaging in
their own ways. The digital technologies seem to offer some relief
from the oppressively frightening economic realities of current film
lab costs.

An example for me is my film “Okeanos” which was made in the early
seventies in 16mm but was rarely shown then. It had only existed as
an edited A-roll reversal (color and B&W). A few years ago I managed
to get a reversal wet-gate print, the very last opportunity for
that. Nowadays I would need to get an inter-negative and then a timed
print, and this work is 33 minutes long! Can’t afford that right now
if I want to keep making films, and worrying about such things is
inhibiting. The telecine transfer worked out fine and the dvd looks
beautiful on my friend’s fancy large tv screen and my other friend’s
small tv screen. I haven’t yet seen it using a digital projector but
will possibly explore this in the future. Seeing a clip on the
internet is just a teaser to give a rough idea of how I work.
Granted nothing looks as lush as a brand new print on a good
projector housed in a sound-proof booth seen in a absolutely dark
room in the midst's of a totally hip and informed audience somewhere
on the planet, however life must go on and I want to make new films,
and the digital presentation is a very acceptable compromise and has
certain advantages as well, mostly convenience and economics and a
few other things.

I still work with film cameras, film stock, film processing, film
editing, and “hand-painting”. For the time being, the initial
dissemination of the work will mostly have to be in a digital format,
like the dvd and consequently made known through the internet etc.,
with the exception of shorter films I may be able to afford printing.

Finding the process which is practical , affordable, and doable is
the essence of freedom for me at the moment, almost an aesthetic
principle. The process! Art! Keeping it going.

  Next year I am imagining some local shows here in my community in
which I might present both digital projection as well as 35mm film
projection!, and hoping to capture the imagination of my young “steam-
punk” friends. Ah...If only I could light my projector with a
kerosene lamp.


Myron Ort

On Jun 14, 2009, at 6:33 AM, JEFFREY PAULL wrote:

> Myron,
> I'm glad you're putting more up on the website.
> Do you feel there is a "best" size to view them? small?,say 2x3
> inches, on a monitor surrounded by black of course
> Medium?, say, quite sharp but on a monitor,
> Large? Projected - even on a planatarium dome?
> I know the originals haven't much small detail, but maybe that
> wouldn't matter?
> Thanks for the mini-show.
> JP
> Here are 2 Toronto websites that might be interested in showing
> your work:
> and
>> I currently find the non-optically time manipulated constant flow of
>> hand-painted movie film images (nicely at "silent speed") to be no
>> more or less comprehensible or incomprehensible than watching the
>> ocean (or anything else for that matter).
>> Art!
>> Myron
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 12:21 PM, Dinorah de Jesús Rodriguez wrote:
>> it's been truly useful to follow this thread, you guys. you are a
>> walking encyclopedia JP! thanks again. i can vouch for almost
>> everything you mentioned after having tried most of those tricks
>> myself, and yes, Myron, i too have used vinegar to sweeten the
>> residue
>> after bleaching and soaking in water, but left the film outside
>> overnight to dry and air out. overall i am not a fan of the
>> bleaching process. yuk! i too have found that warm water and
>> patience produce interesting results (and i am a scraper by
>> nature, so
>> this works well for me). i too tried nail polish remover,
>> turpentine, etc. with mostly ill or nil results. i never thought to
>> use printing chemicals to develop film, nor to use fixer to remove or
>> alter the emulsion, although i have done hand-processing of B/W neg &
>> reversal many times back in the day (now i mostly use found footage,
>> including my own). just goes to show you CAN teach an old dog new
>> tricks.
>> and no, JP, we're not technically old farts if we're still learning
>> something.
>> enjoy today...
>> Dinorah de Jes ús Rodríguez Film/Video Artist and Freelance Writer
>> [2] [3] [4]
>> [5]
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 1:38 PM, Myron Ort wrote:
>> Jeffrey,
>> Again thanks for the further info.
>> btw. I am planning to shoot some B&W in the near future. Since I
>> have long ago used up my stash of old "army surplus" film stock, I
>> may
>> have to buy new... (ouch!)What do you think of Kodak Plus X Neg.
>> stock today? Any recommendations for processing, I may end up
>> just having it processed at Alpha Cine and have them print it.
>> I do own some processing tanks as well as the old Morse hand-crank
>> daylight tank.
>> Myron
>> On Jun 7, 2009, at 10:22 AM, JEFFREY PAULL wrote:
>> Myron and Dinorah -
>> What I wrote comes out of my own experiences in film and still
>> photographyand in teaching it. At my first teaching job, and as part
>> of an intermedia group,I learned how to make B&W slides from B&W negs
>> using Eastman's 5362 (35mm version of 7362). The tonality is
>> georgeous.When I got a job here in Canada, in 1972, the very first
>> thing I put in a requisition for, was an optical printer, and I
>> taught a course called "Frame-by-Frame", got the nearby men's staff
>> washroom (as they call it here) into a darkroom, and my students shot
>> and developed their own footage, made loops, motifs, gestural sweeps,
>> patterns.They coloured it if they wanted.That's how I learned how all
>> this works. It took time and testing, of course, to understand the
>> interrelationships.
>> OK: Just in case . . . . . . a couple of hints - or are they "tips"?
>> - Maybe they're even "secrets". Observations: Penultimate:If
>> you develop B&W film: Any B&W developer will work, but keep this in
>> mind: - Developers used for enlarging paper can also be
>> used to develop cine film. It gives you high contrast results and
>> strong D-Max (opaque blacks).
>> - Kodak makes (made?) several Hi-con developers: D-8,
>> D-11, D-19. They all work.
>> - The highest contrast developers are so-called graphic arts
>> "Litho" developers. They come in separate parts "A" and "B". These
>> developers are so active, you mix A and B parts just before use, and
>> the mixture dies after only several hours.
>> - All developers used to develop CAMERA NEGATIVE stocks
>> (still or cine) are low contrast developers and give weak D-Max.
>> Finally: The word "bleach", photographically, names 3 different
>> chemicals:
>> 1} Bleach that removes or lightens a B&W image, while leaving
>> the gelatine intact.
>> 2 } So-called "rehaloginating bleach" which is the chemical
>> used when you develop any reversal films.
>> 1} Clothes bleach (active ingredient chlorine) Removes image by
>> destroying the gelatine coating the image is imbedded in.
>> Gelatine is a protein; so chlorine will do the same to a soaking
>> hand,
>> or air passages if breathing concentration is more than laundry
>> day.So
>> never mix chlorine bleach with anything because some household stuff
>> makes Clorox fizz which is pure chlorine.If you get Clorox on your
>> skin, it'll feel slippery. Wash you hand(s) til they don't feel
>> slippery and pour a little vinigar in your hands to neutralize the
>> last molocules of chlorine. By this time, the Clorox has been diluted
>> enough so it won't fizz with vinigar. Then you can squeeze the
>> lettuce and eat the salad. (joke)
>> Dinorah and Myron -I'm glad to know that at least part of my emails
>> is (still!) useful.Again, I'm a FRAMEWORKS fan, and I'm comitted to
>> helping filmmakers. So any time in future you think I might be
>> able to
>> help . . . . . . .
>> Jeffrey Paull
>> PS: I guess I assumed I was the only old fart in FRAMEWORKS
>> On Sun 07/06/09 10:23 , Dinorah de Jesús Rodriguez
>> email suppressed [6] sent: hi JP and Myron,i too have been
>> hand-painting and scratching on film for over 30years, but your
>> comments on the removal of the emulsion and subsequent entries on
>> photo fixer revealed some new information for meand i'm sure for many
>> other readers. And it concisely summed up in acouple of pages what
>> it has taken me many years to figure out by trial and error in my
>> studio. Thank you for all of this great info. JP,i am printing out
>> your post as a convenient handout to give to mystudents. thank you,
>> and thanks to Raha for bringing up the subject.
>> enjoy today...Dinorah de Jes ús Rodríguez Film/Video Artist and
>> Freelance [1] [2]
>> [7] [3] [8]
>> [4]
>> __________________________________________________________________For
>> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>> Links: ------[1] [9][2]
>> [10]/[3]
>> [11]/[4]
>> [12]/
>> __________________________________________________________________For
>> info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>> __________________________________________________________________
>> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at .
>> Links:
>> ------
>> [1]
>> [2]
>> [3]
>> [4]
>> [5]
>> [6]
>> (\'(address suppressed)
>> NET\',\'\',\'\',\'\')[7]
>> [8]
>> [9]
>> [10]
>> [11]
>> [12]
>> [13]
>> (\'email suppressed\',\'\
>> ',\'\',\'\')[14]
>> (\'email suppressed\',\'\
>> ',\'\',\'\')[15]
>> (\'email suppressed\',\'\
>> ',\'\',\'\')
> __________________________________________________________________
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.