From: Lyra Hill (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Nov 16 2010 - 16:29:21 PST
I have a pretty simple question about the value of B&W innerneg (I'm
thinking specifically about Kodak 3234, because you can buy 1000ft of it) as
opposed to B&W negative stock in regards to tone-rendering capacity. I am in
a situation in which it is necessary for me to make several intermediate
steps in arriving at my goal, and I would like the finished film strip to be
as rich as my current negative. Here's what I'm doing:
I have some Super8 Plus-X that I have developed as negative. I plan on
printing that on a JK, editing my footage in this process. I then will have
to make an intermediate negative of this positive print, in order to have a
master negative from which to pull multiple married prints.
As stated before, it is important to me to retain as much tonality as
possible through these steps. I would also prefer to stick to B&W stock;
while I may end up printing to 3383 for the married prints, I'm not keen on
color testing for each step in order to maintain desaturation.
I worked it out and the 3234 innerneg that Kodak offers is about the same
price as Double-X. Purchasing a small amount of Double-X is more manageable
right now than figuring out how to convince my friends to go in on 1000 ft
of innerneg. If I use Double-X as an intermediate negative, will I maintain
the same richness? I also have 800ft of negative Plus-X that I've been
hoarding. When it comes to Double-X vs. Plus-X, which stock would be better
for this use?
FrameWorks mailing list