This is just the beginning.
I bought this old 1934 Excel P-36 16mm film projector for a lamp project. Here are a few photos of it before I start working on it. I will try to take photos of the work in progress.
#photo #photography #film #MovieFilm 16mm FilmProjector #Projector #Antique
Trouble on Madison Avenue: An 8mm Silent Film by Sean McSweyn
The FPP recently sat down with Sean McSweyn, a filmmaker studying Film at the University of the Arts in London, to discuss the making of his new 8mm silent film “Trouble on Madison Avenue”, shot on a 1930s Cine-Kodak 8. We hope you enjoy reading about Sean’s process and watching his short film as much as we did.
FPP: Hi Sean, thank you for taking the time to discuss your 8mm silent film “Trouble on Madison Avenue” with the Film Photography Project! Before we dive into the film itself, can you tell us what sparked your interest in making films using analog motion picture film stocks?
Sean: Firstly, I gotta say how cool it is to speak with you about the film. I love talking about films, so it’s doubly fun to be able to talk about one of my own. So, thank you for having me.
As for the spark of interest in shooting analog, it was initially conceived as a work-around for the limitations of one-man, no-budget filmmaking. I wanted to make a film, and I knew I couldn’t realistically achieve the quality of filmmaking I’d hope for digitally, with proper sound, lighting, camera movement, etc. The modern “cinematic look” was just out of my ballpark. Analog afforded the opportunity to reframe those cinematic expectations in the form of 1920s silent film. But I knew that if I was going for the “silent film look”, it needed to be as authentic as possible. Nothing’s worse than digital film grain filters.
FPP: We’re wondering how much experience you had in shooting 8mm or other film formats before you began pre-production on “Trouble on Madison Avenue”? Was this your first time using the 1930s Cine-Kodak 8? Would you say your confidence level was high when you decided to move forward?
**Sean: **None, actually. I had only ever shot digital before this. Is it weird to plug FPP on your own website? For real, as someone who’d never even touched a film camera, ya’ll were immeasurably helpful in the learning process. I asked Michael Raso and Owen McCafferty tons of questions, and their email response time is superhuman. YouTube, of course, was also a handy resource.
The (Cine-Kodak 8) camera was a funny one. You can get these models pretty cheap on eBay, but nobody ever guarantees that they’ll work. Thankfully, the second one I bought worked alright. I did get another backup just in case; they’re very old. I tense up every time I wind them like it’s the last.
I think I shot and developed four 8mm rolls before we started shooting for real, so I’d put my initial confidence at, like, a 4.5/10.
FPP: I couldn’t help but notice the Chaplin Quote just under the Vimeo link to your film.
" Making fun is serious business." - Charlie Chaplin
It struck me the quote could apply to the process of filmmaking as well as the specific visual style you selected to communicate your story. Would you share what the quote means to you, and what it is about this era / style you thought best suited for the subject?
Sean: Aesthetically, Charlie Chaplin was obviously a huge inspiration, along with other big shots of the era: Buster Keaton, Harrold Lloyd. And the process of making the film definitely reflected the quote. The New York shoot was especially challenging, but it was littered with some of the funniest experiences of my life.
Chaplin’s later, more socially engaged work, was what really struck a chord with me thematically. Like many chefs in 2020/2021, I was out of work with a lot of time on my hands and a lot of things to say. Given the practical limitations I talked about, and the themes of my “things to say”, the Chaplin-esque style seemed a perfect fit.
I’m back at film school now, and I’m still working with this style in new projects. I think it can be very effective in communicating “serious business” messages.
FPP: We’d love to hear about your pre-production process, did it include storyboarding each shot? Were there unexpected complications that required improvisation by yourself or the actors?
Sean: I don’t know if I should pat myself on the back or hide my head in shame with these storyboards. I can’t draw, never could. So I devised this method of animated storyboarding using key-framed JPEGs, PNGs, and GIFs in Da Vinci Resolve. It looks incredibly jank, like a sloppy attempt to rip off South Park. My partner thinks I’m ridiculous. But I can’t tell you how helpful they were. It not only helps visualize the framing and blocking of a scene, but the flow of the cuts - the rhythm of the whole movie. Lots of the storyboarded scenes ended up looking almost identical to the real thing. One thing the “silent film look” didn’t relieve me of was production design. Most of the pre-production after storyboarding was spent on all the props, costumes, and makeup. I have to say, I think they turned out pretty well. My shining moment was the shot at the top of the Empire State Building. When we tried to go into the actual building, security wouldn’t let us through with all the equipment (understandable), so I got one of those cheap make-your-own tapestries online with a picture from the Observatory and taped it up in my garage. Movie magic.
FPP: We’re really impressed by the authenticity of the title card and intertitles! Would you elaborate on how you created and shot them?
Sean: They made it as easy in the 30s as it is now. I found an old 8mm Cine-Kodak titler, again on eBay, and downloaded the instruction manual from some obscure website. It’s basically just a stand to hold the camera and titles in place, but includes a little glass magnifier in front of the lens to expand the text. With this nifty thing, all I needed to do was print off some cards with the right dimensions and shoot them. I made cards for the text and the intro/outro titles, and the “telescope” shots of the city that zoom in from the Empire State Building are actually cards too.
FPP: Is it correct that you also developed the film yourself? If so, what chemistry did you use, and would you DIY process again?
Sean: Yes, I developed most of the film at home in Kansas, except for the rolls we shot in New York which I sent straight to FPP in New Jersey for developing. There’s the whole issue with putting film through airport x-rays. We actually shot the New York stuff first, so you can imagine how neurotic I was waiting to see if they turned out so we could move forward. Otherwise, the home development was mainly done because organization of reshoots wasn’t conducive to waiting for development turn-around. I mean, we shot the last scene three days before I moved away.
At home, in my laundry room, I used the FPP BW D96 Developer, Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, and the Kodak Fixer, with a dash of Archival Wash at the end. And lots of Tom Waits music. The chemistry is surprisingly simple once you get the hang of it; it’s the other equipment that’s kind of a pain. The LOMO tank is hard to find outside of Russia, and I tried a bunch of different drying methods. I ended up biting the bullet and getting a used JOBO Mistral 2 film dryer which needed to be modified to fit the 25 foot film rolls.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to bring all that equipment with me when I moved to London for school. But they’ve got a great darkroom on campus which I’m able to use anytime. I would love to get another home setup going in the future.
FPP: From pre-production through post and output of the digital file, how long did you spend on this project?
Sean: Through and through, it was a little over a year, with some breaks in between shooting different parts. The lead actor, Miller, took it upon himself to keep his hair cut at the same length the entire time.
FPP: Is there anything else about your experience you’d like to share with our audience? Things you would do differently, or, tips for other filmmakers?
**Sean: **I would pick a different font for the ending title cards. Most of the 2s look like 9s, so I’ve said it here - “Some of the 2s look like 9s, but they’re 2s!”. Hopefully this absolves me of any libel claims.
On a practical note, I think it’s important to know your limitations and work from there. These kinds of projects often lead to really creative outcomes that would otherwise not find their way into “conventional” cinema. Also, you’d be surprised how enthusiastic people will be to help with your movie, from business owners to friends of friends of friends and their dogs.
On a more sentimental note, Miller and I were friends long before we started making this movie, and Nathan became a great friend in the process. I had to ask a lot of them, sometimes maybe too much, but they were always there and in good spirits. So, I would say to anyone looking to make a film, do it with awesome people who you can trudge around Manhattan for two days, in costume, at five o’clock in the morning, in the scorching summer heat, filming multiple takes, and have a kickass night out with after. I do love being able to sit here and talk about the finished product, but I was lucky enough to love the process of making it even more.
FPP: Thanks so much Sean, it’s been a real pleasurelearning about youradventure in 8mm silent filmmaking!
If you enjoyed Sean’s Trouble on Madison Avenue as much as we did, you can keep up with Sean’s journey in film by following him on Vimeo - <https://vimeo.com/user166360723> or contact him at [email protected].
Blog by Paige Kay Davis, Director of Business Development for the Film Photography Project.
The post Trouble on Madison Avenue: An 8mm Silent Film by Sean McSweyn appeared first on The Film Photography Project.
Trouble on Madison Avenue: An 8mm Silent Film by Sean McSweyn
The FPP recently sat down with Sean McSweyn, a filmmaker studying Film at the University of the Arts in London, to discuss the making of his new 8mm silent film “Trouble on Madison Avenue”, shot on a 1930s Cine-Kodak 8. We hope you enjoy reading about Sean’s process and watching his short film as much as we did.
FPP: Hi Sean, thank you for taking the time to discuss your 8mm silent film “Trouble on Madison Avenue” with the Film Photography Project! Before we dive into the film itself, can you tell us what sparked your interest in making films using analog motion picture film stocks?
Sean: Firstly, I gotta say how cool it is to speak with you about the film. I love talking about films, so it’s doubly fun to be able to talk about one of my own. So, thank you for having me.
As for the spark of interest in shooting analog, it was initially conceived as a work-around for the limitations of one-man, no-budget filmmaking. I wanted to make a film, and I knew I couldn’t realistically achieve the quality of filmmaking I’d hope for digitally, with proper sound, lighting, camera movement, etc. The modern “cinematic look” was just out of my ballpark. Analog afforded the opportunity to reframe those cinematic expectations in the form of 1920s silent film. But I knew that if I was going for the “silent film look”, it needed to be as authentic as possible. Nothing’s worse than digital film grain filters.
FPP: We’re wondering how much experience you had in shooting 8mm or other film formats before you began pre-production on “Trouble on Madison Avenue”? Was this your first time using the 1930s Cine-Kodak 8? Would you say your confidence level was high when you decided to move forward?
Sean: None, actually. I had only ever shot digital before this. Is it weird to plug FPP on your own website? For real, as someone who’d never even touched a film camera, ya’ll were immeasurably helpful in the learning process. I asked Michael Raso and Owen McCafferty tons of questions, and their email response time is superhuman. YouTube, of course, was also a handy resource.
The (Cine-Kodak 8) camera was a funny one. You can get these models pretty cheap on eBay, but nobody ever guarantees that they’ll work. Thankfully, the second one I bought worked alright. I did get another backup just in case; they’re very old. I tense up every time I wind them like it’s the last.
I think I shot and developed four 8mm rolls before we started shooting for real, so I’d put my initial confidence at, like, a 4.5/10.
FPP: I couldn’t help but notice the Chaplin Quote just under the Vimeo link to your film.
" Making fun is serious business." - Charlie Chaplin
It struck me the quote could apply to the process of filmmaking as well as the specific visual style you selected to communicate your story. Would you share what the quote means to you, and what it is about this era / style you thought best suited for the subject?
Sean: Aesthetically, Charlie Chaplin was obviously a huge inspiration, along with other big shots of the era: Buster Keaton, Harrold Lloyd. And the process of making the film definitely reflected the quote. The New York shoot was especially challenging, but it was littered with some of the funniest experiences of my life.
Chaplin’s later, more socially engaged work, was what really struck a chord with me thematically. Like many chefs in 2020/2021, I was out of work with a lot of time on my hands and a lot of things to say. Given the practical limitations I talked about, and the themes of my “things to say”, the Chaplin-esque style seemed a perfect fit.
I’m back at film school now, and I’m still working with this style in new projects. I think it can be very effective in communicating “serious business” messages.
FPP: We’d love to hear about your pre-production process, did it include storyboarding each shot? Were there unexpected complications that required improvisation by yourself or the actors?
Sean: I don’t know if I should pat myself on the back or hide my head in shame with these storyboards. I can’t draw, never could. So I devised this method of animated storyboarding using key-framed JPEGs, PNGs, and GIFs in Da Vinci Resolve. It looks incredibly jank, like a sloppy attempt to rip off South Park. My partner thinks I’m ridiculous. But I can’t tell you how helpful they were. It not only helps visualize the framing and blocking of a scene, but the flow of the cuts - the rhythm of the whole movie. Lots of the storyboarded scenes ended up looking almost identical to the real thing. One thing the “silent film look” didn’t relieve me of was production design. Most of the pre-production after storyboarding was spent on all the props, costumes, and makeup. I have to say, I think they turned out pretty well. My shining moment was the shot at the top of the Empire State Building. When we tried to go into the actual building, security wouldn’t let us through with all the equipment (understandable), so I got one of those cheap make-your-own tapestries online with a picture from the Observatory and taped it up in my garage. Movie magic.
FPP: We’re really impressed by the authenticity of the title card and intertitles! Would you elaborate on how you created and shot them?
Sean: They made it as easy in the 30s as it is now. I found an old 8mm Cine-Kodak titler, again on eBay, and downloaded the instruction manual from some obscure website. It’s basically just a stand to hold the camera and titles in place, but includes a little glass magnifier in front of the lens to expand the text. With this nifty thing, all I needed to do was print off some cards with the right dimensions and shoot them. I made cards for the text and the intro/outro titles, and the “telescope” shots of the city that zoom in from the Empire State Building are actually cards too.
FPP: Is it correct that you also developed the film yourself? If so, what chemistry did you use, and would you DIY process again?
Sean: Yes, I developed most of the film at home in Kansas, except for the rolls we shot in New York which I sent straight to FPP in New Jersey for developing. There’s the whole issue with putting film through airport x-rays. We actually shot the New York stuff first, so you can imagine how neurotic I was waiting to see if they turned out so we could move forward. Otherwise, the home development was mainly done because organization of reshoots wasn’t conducive to waiting for development turn-around. I mean, we shot the last scene three days before I moved away.
At home, in my laundry room, I used the FPP BW D96 Developer, Kodak Indicator Stop Bath, and the Kodak Fixer, with a dash of Archival Wash at the end. And lots of Tom Waits music. The chemistry is surprisingly simple once you get the hang of it; it’s the other equipment that’s kind of a pain. The LOMO tank is hard to find outside of Russia, and I tried a bunch of different drying methods. I ended up biting the bullet and getting a used JOBO Mistral 2 film dryer which needed to be modified to fit the 25 foot film rolls.
Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to bring all that equipment with me when I moved to London for school. But they’ve got a great darkroom on campus which I’m able to use anytime. I would love to get another home setup going in the future.
FPP: From pre-production through post and output of the digital file, how long did you spend on this project?
Sean: Through and through, it was a little over a year, with some breaks in between shooting different parts. The lead actor, Miller, took it upon himself to keep his hair cut at the same length the entire time.
FPP: Is there anything else about your experience you’d like to share with our audience? Things you would do differently, or, tips for other filmmakers?
**Sean: **I would pick a different font for the ending title cards. Most of the 2s look like 9s, so I’ve said it here - “Some of the 2s look like 9s, but they’re 2s!”. Hopefully this absolves me of any libel claims.
On a practical note, I think it’s important to know your limitations and work from there. These kinds of projects often lead to really creative outcomes that would otherwise not find their way into “conventional” cinema. Also, you’d be surprised how enthusiastic people will be to help with your movie, from business owners to friends of friends of friends and their dogs.
On a more sentimental note, Miller and I were friends long before we started making this movie, and Nathan became a great friend in the process. I had to ask a lot of them, sometimes maybe too much, but they were always there and in good spirits. So, I would say to anyone looking to make a film, do it with awesome people who you can trudge around Manhattan for two days, in costume, at five o’clock in the morning, in the scorching summer heat, filming multiple takes, and have a kickass night out with after. I do love being able to sit here and talk about the finished product, but I was lucky enough to love the process of making it even more.
FPP: Thanks so much Sean, it’s been a real pleasurelearning about youradventure in 8mm silent filmmaking!
If you enjoyed Sean’s Trouble on Madison Avenue as much as we did, you can keep up with Sean’s journey in film by following him on Vimeo - <https://vimeo.com/user166360723> or contact him at [email protected].
The post Trouble on Madison Avenue: An 8mm Silent Film by Sean McSweyn appeared first on The Film Photography Project.
Negative Film vs Reversal (Positive) Film? What’s the Difference?
If you’re just starting out with film photography, whether it be still film or motion picture film, you may find yourself scratching your head whilst shopping: Color positive? Color negative? Slide film? Black and white positive? Black and White Reversal? What does it all mean and which should you shoot? Let’s break down the two big differences in film type to help make that decision a little easier.
What’s the difference between positive and negative film?
The words positive and negative seem obvious for those who have shot film for a long time, but for new film shooters (and especially those who may have grown up in the digital era) the two terms may seem a bit odd. Here’s the main differences:
Negative film is by far the most popular choice in still photography. It comes in two basic flavors: black and white negative and color negative. To view images correctly, these films need to be either scanned digitally or be printed on photographic paper in a darkroom to provide a correct image. This is also why we call the finished processed film “negatives” because the images on the film after they come back from the lab, are basically ‘negative’ images of what you captured. This becomes most obvious in black and white negative film because when you hold the finished film up to the light, you’ll notice that all the white areas on your images appear black, and all the light images appear black. When the film is scanned digitally, the software corrects the image and a similar process happens when the film is printed on paper in the darkroom.
Reversal film can be a bit more confusing, mostly because it is called by a few different names and, like negative film, can be either color or black and white (though black and white reversal film is not nearly as common in still film formats.) Adding to the confusion is the fact that reversal film can be called several different things, but it is all the same: positive film, slide film, and transparency film. All of these are the same names for a film that produces a ‘positive’ image. This means when you hold the processed film up to the light, you can see the finished image without needing to scan it digitally or print it on photographic paper in a darkroom. It also means that you can use a device (such as a slide projector or a movie projector in the case of movie film) to shine light through the film and project the image on a wall or a screen. Usually, you’ll see these films described as “reversal” films because the method of processing the film in the lab is known as “reversing.”
In still film (like 35mm, 120, 110, 620, etc.,), the most common reversal film you’ll find is color reversal, such as Kodak’s iconic Ektachrome film. Black and white reversal film also exists for still film but it is less common.
In motion picture film (like Super 8, Regular 8, and 16mm), you’ll find both color reversal film (such as Kodak’s Ektachrome) and black and white reversal (such as FPP’s Cine40 or Fomapan’s R100).
**Which Film Should I Shoot? **
This is a big topic–and there is a laundry list of reasons why you might choose negative film or reversal film depending on what you’re looking for in a finished product.
One of the most common reasons people shoot reversal film is to project the image on a wall or screen with a movie projector (in the case of motion picture film) or a slide projector (in the case of 35mm film.) Many labs that process 35mm reversal film offer the ability to ‘mount’ your film on paper or plastic slide holders. These slides can then be loaded into a slide projector and enlarged on a wall to show your friends and family.
Negative film cannot be projected because you would see a ‘negative’ image of the world. These films are best if you’re looking to create prints on photographic paper (which can be done in a darkroom by your photo lab) or can be scanned digitally and printed on a digital printer.
Most experienced photographers will tell you that shooting reversal films can be tricky. They need near perfect exposure to get good images, while color or black and white negative films have a bit more flexibility-if you accidently under or over expose your film, some or most of that can be fixed when scanning or printing. This is much more difficult with reversal films.
Where Can I Get Film Processed?
Most modern photo labs can process both black and white and color negative films in just about any format. You can choose to get your film back with digital scans or paper prints or both.
Color reversal film processing is readily available from many photo labs around the world. It is important to make sure the lab you’re sending your film to can process the film correctly. Look for a service option called “E6 processing” as this is the chemical processes needed. If you don’t see it listed as an option at your lab, be sure to ask. For still film, you can usually specify if you want your film mounted on paper or plastic slide mounts (for use in a slide projector) or as strips of film that are put in protective sleeves. For movie film formats, you’ll usually get your film back on a reel for projection.
Black and white reversal film processing for still film formats (like 35mm and 120) is far less common. There are only a handful of labs who can properly handle this film, so be sure to ask your lab if they can handle it since it is not the same process as color reversal film.
Black and white reversal film processing for movie film is very common, and most labs that process movie film can handle this as well.
TheDarkroom.com is FPP’s recommendation for just about any still film processing (including both negative and reversal films). If you’re looking to process movie film, the FPP offers both processing and scanning of just about all types of movie films out there.
Still have more questions? Send Mike a note and he’ll point you in the right direction: [email protected]
The post Negative Film vs Reversal (Positive) Film? What’s the Difference? appeared first on The Film Photography Project.
Gay Curmudgeon
Volker
GeekProjects News
Steve Dustcircle 🌹
YouCanToo
TomatoGrilledCheese 
film photography project (unofficial)
