[Konvas] lab accident

[Rick Garbutt]

Rick, chime in, please-- but since I would clip test leads using a JOBO
processor before use, I cannot fathom what your problem is here.

Careful what you wish for.... First off, I'm not 100% clear on what
happened:  the image001.jpg attached to some of these eMails shows up to me
as a 6k file, which, when opened is a blank white square.  eMail gremlins,
I'll bet.

From: "H. W. Stone" <colcam at aim.com>
Reply-To: Konvas Discussion List <cinema at konvas.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:58:09 -0400
To: cinema at konvas.org
Subject: Re: [Konvas] lab accident


 What are you talking about?
The developers, stop, fixers-- they are all the same without regard to the
film speed.

Absolutely correct.*  The ECNII or ECNIIa or whatever variant the lab is
running should have identical chemicals, bath times, and temperatures for
all compatible film stocks, unless, as has already been correctly pointed
out, you're doing something like push processing.

Only push or pull processing makes a difference, there is no "they developed
400 like 200" to worry about-- IF you got your exposure correct.
If the Fuji 400T was properly exposed, not so far overdate as to be harmed,
processed promptly-- it is good.

Well, it should be.  We could go overboard and add caveats about whether the
stock had been X-rayed, or whatever.  But assuming proper storage, careful
exposure, and not an obscene out-of-date (which you should be able to track
via the edge numbers, as a date code is buried in there) there's no reason
for things to be off the rails.

If things ARE off the rails, there is always a reason.  The question is,
will it get properly diagnosed, and will the guilty party/parties 'fess up.
YEARS ago, I had 1200' of 16mm, part of about an otherwise normal 5000' run,
with weird fogging.  The Montreal lab blamed us in camera.  (So why would
those rolls be odd men out, and the rest of the run be fine?)  It was only
when screening the film workprint I noticed the fog had a rhythmic pattern,
kind of daa-pause-da-pause-daa-pause...(repeat) and that the rhythm got
faster as we got farther into the roll.  And it dawned on me:  the lab had
wound the cored camera rolls onto a Goldberg 1200' projection reel (the one
very common in North America with the teardrop "spokes" in the sides) to put
on the processor, and some dolt had flashed the darkroom lights.  We put a
1200' reel on the projector, running film off it, and damn if the pattern
rhythm didn't match the fog perfectly.  Of course, the frequency would
become faster as the reel ran down, as each spiral wrap of the film was
shorter.  Of course, the lab denied everything, liabilities being what they
are.

My lesson here (apart from some lucky detective work) is that there IS
always a reason for badness, but there's often folk who won't like that
reason, and some will lie through their dentures to suppress it.  Mistakes
can happen with the camera; mistakes can often (though it is rare) happen in
labs.  No one is immune.

Unless I can successfully see the footage (and the gremlins seem set against
that) I can't diagnose in more detail.

The same chemistry, the same time, no matter what the film speed.

And, SFAIK, this statement is 100% correct.
 
Very especially if you have other footage from the same run that is okay,
the lab should give you a steep discount on telecine (if not free) to try to
salvage the images.  If your other footage shows you're consistent and
competent, then the accusing finger would seem (note, "seem") to point to
the lab.

Hope you manage to salvage things with a minimum of hassle, and I hope my
slim contribution has helped shed some light.

Very best to all
("very" because (1) it was a splendid autumn day; (2) first class day went
swimmingly, (3) in a Bolt From The Blue, by renewing my car insurance, I won
50,000 air miles, good for most of a return flight to London! - so I'm in an
unconscionably good mood!)
Rick Garbutt, soc

* You just knew there had to be something here, didn't you?  The comment
about processing times/temps/chemistry hold true for COLOR NEGATIVE FILM.
If we were talking about B&W, and you consult the Kodak data sheets, you'd
see there are significantly different developer times for Plus-X and
Double-X B&W negative films.  Pedantry strikes again!
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ole Dost <Ole.Dost at t-online.de>
To: 'Konvas Discussion List' <cinema at konvas.org>
Sent: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 2:04 pm
Subject: [Konvas] lab accident

Dear friends,

What happens to a film that has been exposed at 400 ASA and was processed
like 200?
I send an exposed roll of Fuji 400T (expired but always stored in a
professionals fridge) to very good lab, and they treated it as Kodak Vision
2 200T!!! Although I wrote the film type on the tin, of course.
Does it make any sense to have it telecined? Is telecine able to ³safe² it?
Thanks for your help!

Ole
_______________________________________________

Cinema mailing list

Cinema at konvas.org

http://konvas.org - All about Konvas, Kinor and other Russian Cinema Cameras

Please be kind when replying and crop the replied message!!!

(Like what Rick just did???)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://konvas.org/pipermail/cinema_konvas.org/attachments/20080911/c9615881/attachment.html