Any shooting that bulk roll Plus-X?
Cheesehead
But I've heard of nobody using it, locally at least.
Anyone here using it? What's your satisfaction level?
It looks like a bargain if one puts up with some required elbow grease.
Collin
David Nebenzahl
"Long roll"? What is that--film for aerial cameras? 5" wide?
--
If the United States government, with all its capacity to collect
and interpret information, did not see Hamas doing very well in the
Palestinian election in the wake of these other Islamist victories,
then it is either willfully blind or totally incompetent—-
and neither possibility is a very comforting thought.
- Rami G. Khouri, editor at large of the Beirut-based _Daily Star_
Richard Knoppow
"Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1139579236.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Is it regular Plus-X or motion picture stock? They are
somewhat different. I've not shot any 35mm Plus-X in some
time but have shot it as 120 film. Actually, I rather like
it but use a yellow filter (No.8) for outdoor work
especially portraits. I have also used the motion picture
stock Type 5245. This is very nice film, nearly as fine
grained as 100T-Max. Since developing information is given
for automatic machines using D-96 I had to experiment to
find times. I use D-76 1:1 6.5minutes @ 68F.
A warning: 100 foot rolls of 5245 are supplied in daylight
camera reels rather than cores and may not fit some bulk
loaders.
BTW, bulk loading is not difficult and very economical.
The best loaders IMO are the ones made by Alden. These have
become expensive but are often seen used. The less expensive
ones made by AP are also quite satisfactory but will not
work with the dedicated cassettes made by Nikon or Leica.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dick...@ix.netcom.com
Nick Zentena
>
> "Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1139579236.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> on eBay there's a regular ad for some Plus-X in a
>> long-roll format.
>> But I've heard of nobody using it, locally at least.
>> Anyone here using it? What's your satisfaction level?
>> It looks like a bargain if one puts up with some required
>> elbow grease.
>>
>> Collin
>>
>
> Is it regular Plus-X or motion picture stock? They are
The stuff on Ebay comes in either 5" or I think 10" wide. People are
cutting it down for 8x10 and smaller cameras. Some people on the largeformat
forum and apug.org are using it.
Nick
--
---------------------------------------
"Digital the new ice fishing"
---------------------------------------
Thor Lancelot Simon
Nick Zentena <zen...@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
>
> The stuff on Ebay comes in either 5" or I think 10" wide. People are
>cutting it down for 8x10 and smaller cameras. Some people on the largeformat
>forum and apug.org are using it.
Not a particularly bright idea. It's considerably thinner than sheet
film and will give focus problems _and_ sag in the holder. You could
shim the holder to deal with the first problem, but not the second.
Some bargains aren't worth chasing.
--
Thor Lancelot Simon t...@rek.tjls.com
"We cannot usually in social life pursue a single value or a single moral
aim, untroubled by the need to compromise with others." - H.L.A. Hart
Nick Zentena
> In article <kncvb3-...@barley.site>,
> Nick Zentena <zen...@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>
>> The stuff on Ebay comes in either 5" or I think 10" wide. People are
>>cutting it down for 8x10 and smaller cameras. Some people on the largeformat
>>forum and apug.org are using it.
>
> Not a particularly bright idea. It's considerably thinner than sheet
> film and will give focus problems _and_ sag in the holder. You could
> shim the holder to deal with the first problem, but not the second.
>
> Some bargains aren't worth chasing.
Well you might want to suggest that to the people using it. They seem happy.
David Nebenzahl
> Thor Lancelot Simon <t...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <kncvb3-...@barley.site>, Nick Zentena
>> <zen...@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>
>>> The stuff on Ebay comes in either 5" or I think 10" wide. People
>>> are cutting it down for 8x10 and smaller cameras. Some people on
>>> the largeformat forum and apug.org are using it.
>>
>> Not a particularly bright idea. It's considerably thinner than
>> sheet film and will give focus problems _and_ sag in the holder.
>> You could shim the holder to deal with the first problem, but not
>> the second.
>>
>> Some bargains aren't worth chasing.
>
> Well you might want to suggest that to the people using it. They seem
> happy.
Perhaps they're using vacuum backs or some such to keep the film flat.
Richard Knoppow
"Nick Zentena" <zen...@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote in
message news:kncvb3-...@barley.site...
> Richard Knoppow <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Cheesehead" <dplotu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1139579236.6...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> on eBay there's a regular ad for some Plus-X in a
>>> long-roll format.
>>> But I've heard of nobody using it, locally at least.
>>> Anyone here using it? What's your satisfaction level?
>>> It looks like a bargain if one puts up with some
>>> required
>>> elbow grease.
>>>
>>> Collin
>>>
>>
>> Is it regular Plus-X or motion picture stock? They are
>
> The stuff on Ebay comes in either 5" or I think 10"
> wide. People are
> cutting it down for 8x10 and smaller cameras. Some people
> on the largeformat
> forum and apug.org are using it.
>
>
> Nick
>
"Plus-X" for a number of different emulsions of about the
same speed. Aerial film works fine but is usually on thinner
support than sheet film. I don't think this is enough to
cause focus problems but the film may not sit flat in the
holder.
Processing aerial film requires some experimentation
because the processing instructions are for automatic
machines. The data sheets are on the Kodak web site.
Thor Lancelot Simon
Richard Knoppow <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> If you mean rolls its aerial film. Kodak uses the name
>"Plus-X" for a number of different emulsions of about the
>same speed. Aerial film works fine but is usually on thinner
>support than sheet film. I don't think this is enough to
>cause focus problems but the film may not sit flat in the
>holder.
Indeed, the film can bow enough in the holder that if the camera is
pointed down, one needs to worry not just about focus problems from
the film bowing out in the holder, but even about the sheet of film
bending enough to _fall out of the holder entirely_ at one edge, at
least with 8x10 film. I have a couple of holders I picked up from
someone who used to use 10" roll film in some kind of studio portrait
setup with a special vacuum back, and when I got them (the sheet
holders he used for field use) they all had gunk in the middle of the
holder where he'd used double-stick tape to hold the center of the
sheet in place so the film wouldn't bend, wiggle around, or fall
out; he was using remainders from his long rolls in his sheet holders.
I had to clean the adhesive residue off with film cleaner; ugh.
ELSAN
See this: http://elearning.winona.edu/staff_o/jjs/tmp/grapic.gif
Kodak couldn't even spell the product name properly.
Wonder how closely they were watching their printing company,
which they sold.
ELSAN
Are you friggin kidding me? A bargain? Maybe the non-perf stuff, but the
perforated is hugely expensive! Where are you finding reasonably priced
double-perforated 70mm B&W film?
ELSAN
news:11v54g7...@news.supernews.com...
ALLOW ME TO FLAME MYSELF!
Elsan, you stupid idiot! Did you not notice this is the LARGE-FORMAT group?
You got a comprehension problem? Moron?
Richard Knoppow
web site. There are two Plus-X aerial films with somewhat
different characteristics for different applications.
Aerographic is probably the closest to a normal pictorial
film. Note that the speed is not the same as the ISO speed
for pictorial films. Aerial films are usually developed to
much higher contrast than pictorial films and the
recommended speed reflects this.
Processing of aerial film is usually carried out in
automatic machines using special developers. They can be
processed in standard developers by hand methods but one
must determine the correct developing time and exposure
index by experiment.
All B&W aerial films have spectral sensitivity which is
much extended into the red in comparison with standard
films. Most pictorial films have response down to around
600nm, aerial films are sensitized down to around 700nm.
This is to provide for greater haze cutting when used with
the usual yellow or red filters. The extended red
sensitivity will result in a somewhat odd tone rendition of
skin tone. Those familiar with Technical Pan will know what
this looks like. A green filter will give a more natural
tone rendition of color at the cost of some additional
exposure.
Aerial film base is less than half the thickness of
standard sheet film. One can compensate for this by placing
a sheet of black paper of the right thickness under the film
in the holder.
Note that some Kodak aerial films have familiar names,
like Plus-X, Double-X, Panatomic-X. However, the emulsions
are not the same as the still films bearing these names.
Only the approximate speed ranges are the same. Kodak owns
these trade marks and likes to recycle them.
The Kodak data sheets are useful for anyone contemplating
the use of these films for pictorial purposes.
ELSAN
"Richard Knoppow" <dick...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> [...] The extended red sensitivity will result in a somewhat odd tone
> rendition of skin tone.
Well, gosh! So much for portraits from 30,000 feet!
> Aerial film base is less than half the thickness of standard sheet film.
> One can compensate for this by placing a sheet of black paper of the right
> thickness under the film in the holder.
Are you referring to 9"+ or 5", or 70mm film?
Richard Knoppow
of the base. It is delibrately thin because arial cameras usuallly have
either a glass plate or a vacuume back and so don't have to rely on
the stiffness of the support for flatness. The data sheets will give
you details for each film. Aerial films are on the Kodak site under
business and industry.
--
Richard Knoppow
dick...@ix.netcom.com
at @the-wire.dotcom Lloyd Erlick
t...@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) wrote:
>In article <kncvb3-...@barley.site>,
>Nick Zentena <zen...@stout.hophead.dyndns.org> wrote:
>>
>> The stuff on Ebay comes in either 5" or I think 10" wide. People are
>>cutting it down for 8x10 and smaller cameras. Some people on the largeformat
>>forum and apug.org are using it.
>
>Not a particularly bright idea. It's considerably thinner than sheet
>film and will give focus problems _and_ sag in the holder. You could
>shim the holder to deal with the first problem, but not the second.
>
>Some bargains aren't worth chasing.
March 30, 2006, from Lloyd Erlick,
I think this type of film has a thinner base
because it was meant to be used in cameras
that had a vacuum backplate. I'm no expert in
this area, but I remember seeing an aerial
mapping camera in a surplus shop in the 70s.
It made a large negative on a ten inch roll
of film that was electromechanically advanced
over a beautifully machined piece of metal. I
forget if it was grooved or had many small
holes ...
I'm pretty sure it made a nine by nine frame
on the ten inch film. I'd guess there is,
somewhere, at least one of these things
turned into a studio or field camera by some
photogengineer or maybe engineerphotog.
It ran on whatever weird voltage the military
were using back then (or still do??)
regards,
--le
________________________________
Lloyd Erlick Portraits, Toronto.
voice: 416-686-0326
email: port...@heylloyd.com
net: www.heylloyd.com
________________________________
--
Nicholas O. Lindan
> I remember seeing an aerial
> mapping camera in a surplus shop in the 70s.
> It made a large negative on a ten inch roll
> on the ten inch film. I'd guess there is,
> somewhere, at least one of these things
> turned into a studio or field camera by some
> photogengineer or maybe engineerphotog.
http://www.panopt.com/photogra/washburn/gallerybw.html#
Nicholas O. Lindan
> http://www.panopt.com/photogra/washburn/gallerybw.html#
In most all of BW's mountain photographs there are climbers
on the mountain or snow field ... I don't think most of them
show up in the low-res images available on www.
"You know Ansel, your pictures would be pretty good if they
just had some people in them." B. Washburn
2
news:8d1o22hua4esk4mv0...@4ax.com...
> I think this type of film has a thinner base
> because it was meant to be used in cameras
> that had a vacuum backplate.
Not because, but regardless. Thin film means you can roll more feet in less
space (and weight). I don't know about the 9x9" cameras, but the 5"x5" used
a retracting pressureplate; when the film was rolled the plate pulled back,
and then pushed against the film which laid on top of an optically flat
glass. Yep, they shot through the glass (feduciary marks are on the glass.)