jans@mako.UUCP (Jan Steinman) (08/20/84)
> I recommend the 5247/5293 EASTMAN Color Negative high speed camera films > characterised by excellent sharpness, fine grain, and wide exposure latitude I used 5247 for a number for years, processed both by Dale Labs (as referenced in the article) at another, similar place in Portland, OR. In my opinion 5247 is not professional quality film for the following reasons: * An overall greenish cast, which may be desirable, but does nasty things to snow pictures. * Excessive fading, compared to either Kodachrome or Ectachrome, over a period of four years. * lack of saturation, perhaps a consequence of wider latitude. I made the mistake of shooting a professional assignment (The 1980 Winter Olympics) with all three films for a single AV show. The 5247 slides are noticibly inferior. However, for random shooting, family snapshots, etc., 5247 is inexpensive and seems to make good prints if you don't object to the greenish cast. Give me good old KR -- ER reds and blues any day! -- :::::: Jan Steinman Box 1000, MS 61-161 (w)503/685-2843 :::::: :::::: tektronix!tekecs!jans Wilsonville, OR 97070 (h)503/657-7703 ::::::
dianeh@ism70.UUCP (09/06/84)
***** ism70:net.rec.photo / mako!jans / 1:31 pm Aug 22, 1984 >>In my opinion 5247 is not professional quality film... NOT A PROFESSIONAL FILM?? First of all, 5247/5293 is out-of-date film. Kodak's 35mm movie film is now 5291 and 5294. Saying it isn't a professional film is really silly, since it is the industry standard for motion pictures. >>...for the following reasons: >> * An overall greenish cast, which may be desirable, but does nasty >> things to snow pictures. Motion picture film is balanced for Tungsten (3400 Kelvin). In order to use it outdoors (~5400 Kelvin), you have to compensate for that by using an 85 filter. For most cases that should be enough, especially for a 35 SLR, since you have the advantage over a film camera by being able to adjust the shutter. In excessively bright conditions (such as your snow shots), you might want to go to an 85 ND3, depending on what kind aperture and shutter speed you wanted to use (although it's unlikely that you'd ever need it.) The 5291 is rated at 100 ASA; the straight 85 would take it down to 64, the ND3 would take it down to 32, the ND6 takes it down to 16, etc. The 5294 is for indoors, rated at 500. >> * Excessive fading, compared to either Kodachrome or Ectachrome, >> over a period of four years. What faded? The original neg or the slides? >> * lack of saturation, perhaps a consequence of wider latitude. I doubt if the 2-stop latitude had anything to do with the saturation. >>I made the mistake of shooting a professional assignment (The 1980 Winter >>Olympics) with all three films for a single AV show. The 5247 slides are >>noticibly inferior. However, for random shooting, family snapshots, etc., >>5247 is inexpensive and seems to make good prints if you don't object to the >>greenish cast. Give me good old KR -- ER reds and blues any day! Kodachrome and Ektachrome are NOT professional films; they are amateur films made for taking random shots, family photos, etc. However, if you're doing a slide show, they certainly would be the appropriate choice -- motion picture film would NOT be. If SLIDES are the desired end-product, you don't want them to be second generation, you want them to be first generation. You want to use 5291 (or 5294) when the main desired end-product is a PRINT. These films are used extensively for taking production stills on movie sets (it works out especially nice since the set is already appropriately lit). The best place to purchase and process this film is: RGB 816 N. Highland Hollywood, CA 90038 They give you the negative, slides, contact sheet and a new roll of film. They'll also color-correct if you happen to have forgotten to use the 85 when you shot it. Trying to use film designed for film cameras in a still camera means having to use a little more care, but if done properly and for the right reasons, this film can produce outstanding results. diane
bryan@rochester.UUCP (Bryan Lyles) (09/10/84)
Since there has been a resurgence of interest in 5247 type motion picture films for still camera use, I will repeat my remarks of last year. Tungsten light is deficient in blue with respect to daylight (notice that tungsten and daylight are imprecise terms). Therefore the blue sensitive layer in a tungsten film is about 1 stop more sensitive than the red and green layers. If you expose a tungsten film to daylight you will either overexpose the blue or underexpose the red and green layers in the highlights and shadows. There is no way to "color balance" such a negative. I have tried, believe me. I even tried one of Pat Dignan's super soups; it did not work. On the other hand, if you expose through an 85B filter the film is great (if you get FRESH film). However, motion picture film have a layer of carbon based rem-jet antihalation backing on them to surpress static in the motion picture camera. This gunk is as welcome as a tar baby in a commercial processor's tanks. Thus you either have to do it yourself (its not THAT hard) or send it to RBG or ... All negative material can be used to produce slides. There is nothing special about 5247, etc. However, the standard Eastman print film is optimized for mechnical properties, not longevity. A hundred time through a projector destroyes the film anyway so why worry about print life. There is a long life print film, I don't know if RBG, etc use it. -Bryan Lyles (allegra, seismo)!rochester!bryan
kevin@amdcad.UUCP (Kevin OwWing) (09/10/84)
> > Kodachrome and Ektachrome are NOT professional films; Be careful here, there are professional ektachrome films made by Kodak; but I'm assuming that you are referring to the more widely available forms of the film. Kevin Ow-Wing @ AMDCAD (408) 749-2354 UUCPnet: {ihnp4,amd,gatech,resonex}!amdcad!kevin US MAIL: 901 Thompson Pl. Sunnyvale, CA 94086 Mail Stop 144
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (09/12/84)
Sorry, but I've never been overly fond of Eastman color for movies either. Sometimes professional means cheap, too! Professionals don't always go with the highest quality because they've got to keep their profit margin. Motion picture film is not always balanced for Tungsten, just usually. You can even get daylight Super-8, you just got to stick the little key in the hole to make the 85 filter get out of the way. I beg to differ. Look at National Geographic, or any magazine that the photographers list what film they were using. Look at what contract photographers use. A majority use Kodachrome and Ektachrome. It is a professional film. Ektachrome wins out on pros who do their own developing because E-6 is one of the handier chemistries. Gaffer's tape is a professional tape, but I don't use it on my desk top. -Ron