Will a still photo lab safelight fog 16mm motion picture reversal film?
Bloom
I'm thinking of bringing a pair of rewinds into a still lab to spool
down some film. Or do I need absolute darkness for film? (I'm only
used to dealing with photo paper.) Thanks.
Marc
Scott Dorsey
The safelight you use for photo paper is an orange OA or OC, which will
fog any material that has anything wider than blue sensitivity.
You can use a deep red #1 safelight filter when working with lab printing
stocks, or orthochromatic camera stocks.
For panchromatic film or color film, you need total darkness. After all,
the film is supposed to respond to all colors of light, so how can you get
a color that you can see that the film won't?
You can use IR goggles and an IR safelight, which some labs are starting
to use. Not cheap, though.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
JohnW248
Dorsey) writes:
>For panchromatic film or color film, you need total darkness. After all,
>the film is supposed to respond to all colors of light, so how can you get
>a color that you can see that the film won't?
If a safelight can be used, it is usually specified in the Kodak or other
manufacturer's spec sheet. Generally color motion picture print films were
(are?) handled under a Wratten 8 (very dark yellow) or a dark green (forgot
number). They provide very little light. An alternative to IR is Sodium. Not a
cheap alternative, but seems like daylight when compared to a Series 8 filter.
(Note these are mostly different than those for still films and papers.)
If you're just winding down, it's not a big deal to work in total darkness.
Remeber to wind key numbered stock to end and then rewind onto cores or camera
spools to ket the numbers on the proper side (you'll have to do that if you're
winding single perf).
John
Steven J. Weller
klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
> You can use IR goggles and an IR safelight, which some labs are starting
> to use. Not cheap, though.
Okay, so, serious question - I've seen in various catalogues the old
Soviet night vision gear, and some of it's pretty cheap - $200-$300 or
so. Supposed to work on infared, and some even have their own little
infared 'illuminators' that you can clip onto them.
Is there a reason why this el-cheapo system wouldn't work in yer'
average run-of-the-mill photo lab?
--
Life Continues, Despite
Evidence to the Contrary
Steven
Frank Wylie
wrote:
If you want absolute safety, total darkness should be your route.
Some stocks can be somewhat sensitive to IR and raise your base + fog
when exposed.
I've worked the dark end of a processor a few times and it's not
really that hard to get used to. After stapling your fingers, instead
of the film, a few times, it kinda wakes you up and gets you
concentrating on the job at hand.
Daniel Haude
in Msg. <8eo02p$pma$1...@zook.lafn.org>
| In article <8enih4$c6i$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
| klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
|
| > You can use IR goggles and an IR safelight, which some labs are starting
| > to use. Not cheap, though.
|
| Okay, so, serious question - I've seen in various catalogues the old
| Soviet night vision gear, and some of it's pretty cheap - $200-$300 or
| so. Supposed to work on infared, and some even have their own little
| infared 'illuminators' that you can clip onto them.
You can also use cheapo black-and-white CCD surveillance cameras. They
eagerly respond to IR, but of course they can't be worn as goggles. Maybe,
however, they require much higher IR intensity than the night-vision
devices which might fog the film.
--Daniel
--
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy
way to factor large prime numbers." -- Bill Gates, "The Road Ahead"
Scott Dorsey
Steven J. Weller <az...@zoon.lafn.org> wrote:
>In article <8enih4$c6i$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net>
>klu...@netcom.com (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>
>> You can use IR goggles and an IR safelight, which some labs are starting
>> to use. Not cheap, though.
>
>Okay, so, serious question - I've seen in various catalogues the old
>Soviet night vision gear, and some of it's pretty cheap - $200-$300 or
>so. Supposed to work on infared, and some even have their own little
>infared 'illuminators' that you can clip onto them.
>
>average run-of-the-mill photo lab?
Most of these things don't focus closely enough to do fine work with
them, they don't have a wide field of view, and they can't be strapped
on for hands-free operation.
Most of the color lab guys I know who use this stuff are buying the
Israeli military surplus infrared goggles, which strap onto your head
and focus up to a couple feet, letting you see what you're working with
in your hands.
Personally, I have been working in the dark for thirty years now and
I'm used to it enough that I don't see a need for that kind of gear.
I can see it being useful if you're trying to diagnose problems with
roller-transport machines without losing film, though. And labs often
have to do that kind of thing.
Sswitaj
ha...@physnet.uni-hamburg.de (Daniel Haude) writes:
>You can also use cheapo black-and-white CCD surveillance cameras. They
>eagerly respond to IR, but of course they can't be worn as goggles. Maybe,
>however, they require much higher IR intensity than the night-vision
>devices which might fog the film.
I've been in a bis stills lab that uses this method to monitor the insides of
their dip n' dunk machines. (the monitors are outside, near the control
consoles)
- Steve