1971 Lake Cote / Lago de Cote UFO Aerial Photo

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
The full text quoted in #104 says that a 'contact copy' was taken from the original negative in the archive. I take it that a 'contact copy' is the same thing as a 'contact print', as described in this Wikipedia article:
I agree a contact copy from the negative would create a positive print, but that's not what UAP Costa Rica says in the Twitter response to TopBunk (post #142). He claims to have an 8x10 negative made from the original negative:
1652202268505.png
 

nmarsollier

New Member
Most of the times when I personally see this comments I feel like most explanations makes sense.
Would be awesome that some professional with access to similar equipment could try to reproduce similar results.
That would be to me the most convincing evidence.
 

Ravi

Senior Member.
I was zooming into the photographs of the prints shown on a table, as found in Mick's post #14.
I am lost with how many prints there are but nevertheless, I see some odd marks around the "ufo" on this image, which is not seen in in the scan if post #1. Some rough outline of the shape. Could it be the leftover of a tape being applied? Scotch invisible tape?
What is going on here?

Screenshot 2022-05-10 at 20.25.30.png
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Just some thoughts:

Here is the scanned picture from the CR archives in which Mick has removed the watermark from post #28, followed by the new drum scan image from post #104

1652213031001.png
1652213744002.png

This is how Vallee and Hains described in 1990, what they claim was, the original negative:

1652213322666.png

1652213377691.png
www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_haines.pdf


The pictures are aligned differently, but one can make out the scratch through the dark portion of the saucer in CR archive photo, like in the Vallee photo. I don't see it in the new drum scan.

Now the conventional reason would be that the new drum scan is from a "contact" negative of the original negative made in the '70s or '80s and the original negative was subsequently handled and scratch up proir to Vallee seeing it.

What we don't know is when the CR archive print was made. The info about it (post #28) gives a date of 1971, but that could refer to when the original picture was taken, not when the print was made.

We have Vallee and Hines being provided prints of frames 299,300 and 301 in 1989, then, they claim, the original negatives of the same frames. Both times these were provided by Ricardo Vilchez who ran research org with his brother.

1652215123279.png
www.scientificexploration.org/docs/4/jse_04_1_haines.pdf

1652215319873.png
1652215355530.png
http://www.nicap.org/articles/710904_JSE_03_2_haines.pdf

Prints of these 3 frames were then provided to Mick a year ago by @UAP_CR (post #14). So it seems they're floating around.

UAP_CR is Esteban Carranza and he's also the one that claims to have received the "contact" negative of the original from his Uncle. He doesn't mention who his uncle was.

From the story about the new scan:

When Esteban Carranza showed Loaiza the negative, he was pretty excited! He believes the contact copy might have been made around 1975, since by the time the negative became famous in the 80s, it already had a lot of scratches from its manipulation.
Content from External Source
/www.uapmedia.uk/articles/costarica-ufo?fbclid=IwAR1pXF-PoHTMEc941FLT-Peq3Za5owyrfG-vNWNaXtecyQPyX-BkPBT7jzg

Hence, why the scan doesn't have the scratches. But if the photo became famous in the '80s, something Vallee also suggests:

1652216332012.png
http://www.nicap.org/articles/710904_JSE_03_2_haines.pdf

Why is Carrannza's uncle making prints of this one particular frame in 1975? And then keeping it under wraps for 40 years, even as Vallee and others are making a big deal about it during the '80s and '90s? The story is that the crew were told not to talk about it (bold by me):

Naturally the individuals were excited as to what they might have captured but this was short lived as the higher ups at the National Geographic Institute quickly told them not to talk about it. Why were they told this? And when did that change? Obviously they were allowed to talk about it at some point, and the study by Haines and Vallée was published. I have always thought that the government was to be commended for being transparent… so this is a surprise..
Content from External Source
/www.uapmedia.uk/articles/costarica-ufo?fbclid=IwAR1pXF-PoHTMEc941FLT-Peq3Za5owyrfG-vNWNaXtecyQPyX-BkPBT7jzg

If that's the case, why was Carrannz's uncle allowed to make copies of it? And if it's so important, why not some more detail about how and why the uncle ended up making it?

These photos/negatives have floating around since the '80s, now the guy currently promoting it happens to acquire a near original that produces a new clean scan. One better than can be made from the actual original, as it's been damaged. And that scan has been shown to have been manipulated with Photoshop. Is this new scanned image somehow being made to look like it came from a '70s copy?
 

TopBunk

Active Member
Some info on the camera used.

Note the pressure plate and film punch.

Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.40.13.pngScreenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.39.22.png
Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.38.48.pngScreenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.37.33.png

Is it odd that the centre dot on the the fiducial mark nearest the object isn't visible in the new drum scan? Maybe the photoshopper at the scan lab just thought it was a defect?

Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.58.02.png

Also this on kind of navigation sight they used which protrudes beneath the aircraft. Might just be a coincidence that it lines up with where the object is in the frame.

Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.33.49.png


You can see the one used on this exact camera here. It's quite close to the camera lens.

Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 12.06.12.png

Now we just need to find a photo from the same kind of camera with a similar defect...

Source: Camera details.
https://aerial-survey-base.com/wp-c...rial-photogrammetry-and-interpretation_LR.pdf

Navigation sight:
https://www.bas.ac.uk/polar-operati...nce-and-technology/aerial-photography-camera/
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.40.13.png
    Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.40.13.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 20
  • Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.40.13 2.png
    Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 11.40.13 2.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 21
Last edited:

TopBunk

Active Member
The photo was taken at 08:25. The time on the clock is correct. Here's how the shadows look at that time.

CoteClock copy.jpg

Screenshot 2022-05-11 at 20.10.09.png
[Source: https://www.suncalc.org/#/10.5739,-84.9106,16/1971.09.04/08:25/99/1]

Then shadow should be on your freehand UFO's left :cool:

However there's something wrong here. According to watch picture on pic's margin, it was taken at 12.25pm. From SunCalc, sunlight should come from west-southwest at that time.

1621084260572.png

But sunlight clearly comes from north-east as it can be seen from trees and rock on lake's border. It's hard to believe they wouldn't have camera's watch adjusted to correct time. Anyway object's shadow is inconsistent with cloud and ground shadows as far as I can see.

1621084410458.png
 
Last edited:

kasparovitch

Active Member
Nice work. You're right, at the time I misread the watch handles. But I didn't have such a high resolution watch either. Can you give the pic source?

Can you better explain which buildings have been removed?
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Just in case you need further evidence of adjustments made the drum scan. Here's a photo from a tweet holding his negative overlaid on the drum scan of the same negative.
1652299703904.png
Maybe it's just me, but the clouds in the "negative" are white, the trees are dark, the lake is black and the saucer is white. Just like in the big drum scan. That's not a negative right? It's a print.
 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
See [#136] its a negative.
I see nothing in post #136 to show it's a negative, other than Carrannz's claim that it is. In fact I would argue that it looks like a print when zoomed in on what's in the scanner. The clouds appear to be white and the road is light colored as well, just like in the print:
1652300992282.png
In addition, I would argue that when one zooms in on the "neagative" he is holding up to the light on his Twitter feed (post # 167) one can just make out a scratch next to the saucer (parallel with the red line):

1652301299327.png
That scratch is not on the new scan, along with the other stuff you pointed out. And it's not a negative, the clouds are white the lake is dark.

It appears to be a transparent positive, like a slide if people remember those:
1652301981133.png
It's likely he just doesn't know that what he's calling it is incorrect. More importantly, IF that is a scratch on what he's holding up AND his claim is true that what he has is a contact "transparency" from the original negative made by his uncle before 1980 the scratch was there then.

But the whole point of this new scan, besides hash-tagging and trying to get an audience with Musk and the others, is that it's from a pre '80s pristine negative/print. If what he has is no different than what's been floating around out there already and the only reason it looks better is it was Photoshoped, then the idea that it comes from his uncle back in '75 is just a story.

He may have had something and had it drum scanned, make one of the better prints out there now, but not necessarily something from '75.
 
Last edited:

TopBunk

Active Member
Or an interpositve negative. A positive image on negative film. Dark lake, white clouds, and they removed the scratches after the scan. Whatever it is at least he had the decency to hold it in the right orientation.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
More differences between the drum scan left, and the picture from [#1] right. The removal of so many light coloured objects is pretty odd, maybe beyond simple photo vanity. Some of them seem quite reflective of the strong morning light from the East (yellow arrow) - particularly the brightest white building in the second image which looks like its catching the light. (Just let me know if i've exceeded by Metabunk upload data limit...)

Screenshot 2022-05-12 at 00.57.55.png

Screenshot 2022-05-12 at 00.53.28.png
Screenshot 2022-05-12 at 00.49.50.png
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
E-cYIptWYAQdLbC (1).jpg

Let's please stop going 'round and 'round on this. Forget what this guy is calling it. This is a sheet of film. You can see the the hill in the background through it. It's a positive image. It's an interpostive. The end.

This is consistent with it being a contact print from the original camera negative. Doesn't mean it is, but it could be.

Not to make this an argument by authority, but... In the 70's I was a photography major; and staff photographer on my high school newspaper, HS yearbook and college newspaper. Lots of darkroom time, including color.
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Not to make this an argument by authority, but...
Authority accepted, with a couple of caviats ;):

1. If this is supposed to be great evidence of UFOs, I think it's important that we at least know what is being presented to us. As you say it's an interpositive , not a negative, on film from whatever source. Settled.

2. If this is supposed to be great evidence of UFOs and this guy wants to get with Elon to discuss it, he should get his s*&t straight before spouting off on Twitter and understand what his uncle left to him. Allegedly.

More important to me is what @TopBunk is showing in post #175. If correct, there is a lot of manipulation going on, which makes what it is or where it came from a bit more irrelevant.
 

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
What I know is film. I don't know jack about digital. But I suspect the lab that did the scan was just doing a routine job. They clean up their scans to make them look better, and scratches don't look good. Most likely they had no idea this was even a UFO photo, let alone the issues involved with an analysis done decades ago.

I don't think the present owner of this interpositive is at all aware of the issues either. He inherited the darn thing. That doesn't mean he knows anything.

He sure doesn't know anything about film, and I doubt he was aware that the lab cleans up their scans.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
I wonder if anyone's looked at the frames with a stereoscope? It's common with aerial survey analysis and the frames seem to have the 60% overlap. Maybe more detail on the proposed trace of the object in each frame can be gained that way?
[Source: https://ncap.org.uk/feature/interpreting-aerial-photograph]
I've tried to line up the available three frames and notice while doing so that clouds (roughly indicated by the blue guide lines) appear to move in opposite directions over the three frames (perhaps swirling around the lake? Not a cloud expert).

Screenshot 2022-05-12 at 11.46.23.png
Did they shoot stereoscopically?
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I wonder if anyone's looked at the frames with a stereoscope?
I did look at the overlapping pairs of them in a "wall-eye stereo" mode to see the ground in "3D".
I've tried to line up the available three frames and notice while doing so that clouds (roughly indicated by the blue guide lines) appear to move in opposite directions over the three frames (perhaps swirling around the lake? Not a cloud expert).
Regarding clouds' positions, shadows and movements see my comments #62 and #74
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member.
I've looked at it again. I think the clouds all move East.
The plane travelled from East to West, but the clouds only seemed to move in the opposite direction. Their shadows did not move significantly during 20-second intervals between the frames.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
The plane travelled from East to West, but the clouds only seemed to move in the opposite direction. Their shadows did not move significantly during 20-second intervals between the frames.
Okay.

 

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
I don't think the present owner of this interpositive is at all aware of the issues either. He inherited the darn thing. That doesn't mean he knows anything.

He sure doesn't know anything about film, and I doubt he was aware that the lab cleans up their scans.
A reasonable conclusion I'll go with for now.

However, I find this situation does raise some cynicism in the back of my mind:

1. Carrannz is hyping this new photo heavily and begging to get with everyone from Elizando and Lobe to Elon.
2. The whole "uncle made this long ago" story has a treasure map trope feel about it. "Look what I found in an old shoebox!"
3. As of now the uncle is still an unknown person, who can no longer be asked about the origins of the interposative, we just have to take Carrannz word for it.
4. IF TopBunk is correct about specific things being erased, not just a general clean up, it raises some serious questions.
 

DavidB66

Active Member
The terminology is getting really confusing, to me anyway.

I take it that in standard usage a negative image of a scene is one in which brightness values are reversed: light areas in the scene appear dark in the image, while dark areas in the scene appear light in the image. Whereas in a positive image light areas in the scene appear light in the image, and dark areas appear dark. I hope this is uncontroversial?

Suppose that by some process (for the present purpose it doesn't matter what) a negative image is taken of an existing negative image. The result would be to reverse the brightness values of the existing image, so that light areas in that image would appear dark in the copy, and vice versa. But the light areas in that image represent dark areas in the original scene, so the effect of taking the negative copy is to produce a positive image of the original scene.

But then along comes the interpositive image to muddy the waters. I have looked at several definitions, but there does not seem to be a standard interpretation of the term. The Wikipedia article 'Interpositive'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpositive

describes it as a 'negative image created by a positive process'. This apparently means a process which retains the brightness values of an original negative image, so that dark areas in the original image also appear dark in the interpositive. This implies that dark areas in the original external scene will appear light in the interpositive, and light areas in the scene will appear dark in the interpositive. In this sense an interpositive will therefore look like a negative.

But wait - other sources give the opposite interpretation! This dictionary of terms used in archives

https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/interpositive.html

defines 'interpositive' as

A photograph, usually on film, with normal polarity that is created during a two-step process to duplicate negatives.... Interpositives are typically made using negative film; a negative of a negative produces a positive image. The interpositive is then used to make another negative. [Italics added]

The 'interpositive' will therefore look like a positive image of the original scene - one with 'normal polarity' This usage also appears to be followed by the National Archives in the USA:

https://www.archives.gov/preservati...positive,negatives rather than for projection.

I suppose it doesn't matter what definitions we use so long as they are clear and consistent. So far as the Lago de Cote images are concerned, there seems to be a consensus in recent posts that the images we are talking about are positive with respect to the original scene, i.e. that dark areas in the original scene appear dark in the images and light areas appear light. Notably, it is pointed out that clouds viewed from above should look light, as they do in the images. I have no expertise in interpreting aerial photographs, so I can't judge that. It does seem odd that lots of people over the years have looked at images which are frequently described as 'negatives' without saying: hang on, aren't these positives?
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
I think too much emphasis is put on negatives, positives, interpositives and so on when what really matters is the true negative. Carranza already made it clear that he had accessed true negative and keeps insisting on processed copies, photoshopped or not. A simple photograph of the negative, if not a few high quality photographs, would be much more informative than all those transformations. It would permit checking whether there's Scotch tape there or not, to mention just one benefit. Why Carranza keeps working on further generation negatives or positives is a mystery or perhaps its key. Of course, one could argue that National Archive wouldn't allow photographing because say of exposure to a flash. But how would they allow so much manipulation as contact copies and so on and forbid a photograph. Also, Carranza must be aware of the suspect image on frame #299 and keeps ignoring it, perhaps for some reason.
 

jarlrmai

Senior Member
The problem is the techniques of film development are not known to most people, so to them anything before the print is a "negative."

It matters of course because if we think this artefact was introduced because of a flaw in the process from film to print, then ideally we want to see as far back down that chain to see if so.

But the terms being used are either intentionally or accidentally implying we are seeing that, when in fact we are not.
 

TopBunk

Active Member
Isn't the bottom line that the original camera negative - what was actually exposed in the camera on the plane that day in 1971 is held in the Costa Rica land registry office (here:9.919304439535232, -84.05043456527385) Someone has a copy of that original film and we now have a digitally altered copy of that. We don't know enough about how/when that copy was made but we do know its a physical process not a digital one, and we don't know enough about the recent drum scan and it's subsequent digital manipulation - all of which is hindering resolving this.

It seems simple enough for someone to make an appointment to examine the original.

However...my hunch is that the media hype surrounding this new release is an attempt to elevate this piece of evidence to a Should of Turin tier. I'm sure in years to come we'll be seeing text like this in relation to actually viewing this thing:
After all that, it's not actually possible to see the real Shroud of Turin, though replicas and displays at the Most Holy Shroud Museum do an excellent job of explaining the shroud and its mysteries. The museum is currently open daily from 9 am to 12 pm ...Current admission is €8 for adults and €3 for children 6-12. Kids 5 and under are free. On display are artifacts related to the Holy Shroud and information about its complicated history... There's an audio guide available in 5 languages and a bookshop...
 
Last edited:

NorCal Dave

Senior Member.
Carranza already made it clear that he had accessed true negative and keeps insisting on processed copies, photoshopped or not.
I don't think that's right. His claim is that his uncle obtained or made a contact copy from the original negative and he, Carranza, now has that contact copy. From the story and his twitter feed:

Esteban Carranza has a 40+ year old 8x10 negative, which is a “contact” copy of the COTE UFO original negative that resides in the National Archives of Costa Rica. He acquired this from his late uncle, who passed away last year. He obtained it back in the late 70s - early 80s from the National Geographic Institute.
Content from External Source
www.uapmedia.uk/articles/costarica-ufo?fbclid=IwAR1pXF-PoHTMEc941FLT-Peq3Za5owyrfG-vNWNaXtecyQPyX-BkPBT7jzg

Did I ever tell you that I have a 40-year old contact copy negative from the original negative? No? Well, now you know
Content from External Source
twitter.com/UAP_CR/status/1434141553711357952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1434141553711357952%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

So Carranza doesn't have access to the original, or if he does, he's touting this uncles copy instead.

It does seem odd that lots of people over the years have looked at images which are frequently described as 'negatives' without saying: hang on, aren't these positives?
My fault for getting pedantic about negative/positive. It bothered me because it made it sound like there were more generations involved than was being claimed. After seeing the Tweet with Carranza holding up what he has it made more sense (post #167).

At the risk of being pedantic again, I'll clarify the steps in old school black and white photography:

1. In simple terms, photographic film is clear plastic or glass with a light sensitive silver-based layer on it. When the film is exposed to light in a camera, the silver-based layer reacts to the light.

2. The exposed film is removed from the camera and then "developed" in a series of chemicals. The result is that anywhere light struck the film, the developed silver-based layer will become dark. The more light hit it, the darker it becomes. Hence bright white clouds will appear very dark and visa-versa.

3. As the film is clear plastic/glass with the now developed silver-based layer, it creates a transparent negative image of whatever was photographed. This is the "original negative".

4. A contact copy is normally made using a piece of photographic paper. It's paper with the same silver-based layer on it. One places the paper on a table and then lays the transparent film negative on top of it in the dark. Then a light is shined down on the table. As the clouds on our negative are dark, very little light is let through to the paper underneath, while the light areas on the negative allow more light through to the paper. The silver-based layer on the paper reacts the same as it does on the plastic film. The paper is then developed like the film resulting in a positive image on the paper.

What Carranza seems to have is a transparent positive or film positive. That is, the same process of making a contact was followed, except instead of placing photo paper under the original negative, another piece of film was used. It's a positive image, but as it's on a piece of film, not paper, so that many people referred to it as a "negative".

In fact, if one where to make a contact copy on photo paper in the old way from what Carranza was holding up, they would end up with a negative print. Or, they could make a contact copy onto film again and end up with a film negative, but not the original. Edit: (If one is making duplicate negatives in this manner from a positive on film, I believe this is what Z.W. Wolf is calling an "interpositive", which makes sense to me). This could then be repeated over and over.

More importantly, we don't know where his film positive came from or when it was made, other than his claim it was his uncles.

Even more important, the resulting drum scan from film positive appears to have been digitally manipulated.
 
Last edited:

jarlrmai

Senior Member
Also ironically a high quality drum scan intended to produce a digital print is a bad way to do this, if there is some physical flaw that shows up as this object because of a "3d" blemish on it then really what you want is a angle on photo of the area to see that it is a flaw and not an actual light exposed part of the image. Obviously if that flaw is on the original film then it's already too late unless you are looking at the film.
 

kasparovitch

Active Member
I'm aware Carranza claims a 40-year-old contact negative, but as he offers present-day pictures of Archives and the box containing the film, and a certified copy of frame #300 from 2014, I assume he or someone else close to him has easy access to them. The most important part would be why aren't true negatives examined.
 
Last edited:

Z.W. Wolf

Senior Member.
The terminology is getting really confusing, to me anyway.

I take it that in standard usage a negative image of a scene is one in which brightness values are reversed: light areas in the scene appear dark in the image, while dark areas in the scene appear light in the image. Whereas in a positive image light areas in the scene appear light in the image, and dark areas appear dark. I hope this is uncontroversial?

Suppose that by some process (for the present purpose it doesn't matter what) a negative image is taken of an existing negative image. The result would be to reverse the brightness values of the existing image, so that light areas in that image would appear dark in the copy, and vice versa. But the light areas in that image represent dark areas in the original scene, so the effect of taking the negative copy is to produce a positive image of the original scene.

But then along comes the interpositive image to muddy the waters. I have looked at several definitions, but there does not seem to be a standard interpretation of the term. The Wikipedia article 'Interpositive'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpositive

describes it as a 'negative image created by a positive process'. This apparently means a process which retains the brightness values of an original negative image, so that dark areas in the original image also appear dark in the interpositive. This implies that dark areas in the original external scene will appear light in the interpositive, and light areas in the scene will appear dark in the interpositive. In this sense an interpositive will therefore look like a negative.

But wait - other sources give the opposite interpretation! This dictionary of terms used in archives

https://dictionary.archivists.org/entry/interpositive.html

defines 'interpositive' as



The 'interpositive' will therefore look like a positive image of the original scene - one with 'normal polarity' This usage also appears to be followed by the National Archives in the USA:

https://www.archives.gov/preservation/products/definitions/in.html#:~:text=An Interpositive is a positive,negatives rather than for projection.

I suppose it doesn't matter what definitions we use so long as they are clear and consistent. So far as the Lago de Cote images are concerned, there seems to be a consensus in recent posts that the images we are talking about are positive with respect to the original scene, i.e. that dark areas in the original scene appear dark in the images and light areas appear light. Notably, it is pointed out that clouds viewed from above should look light, as they do in the images. I have no expertise in interpreting aerial photographs, so I can't judge that. It does seem odd that lots of people over the years have looked at images which are frequently described as 'negatives' without saying: hang on, aren't these positives?
The Wikipedia article that is confusing you...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpositive

...involves the process for making color movies.

It's an unsourced stub. The text is poorly written, and confusing.

This is essentially correct.
An interpositive, intermediate positive, IP or master positive is an orange-based motion picture film with a positive image made from the edited camera negative.
The term orange-based is something I've never heard before.
https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/color-negative-mask-questions-and-confusions.254896/

I wish I had the slides that I was shown when I took the photo technology training class when I started at Kodak. Dr. Hansen was director of Research at the time. He was the original inventor of the colored coupler mask. I will try to describe it in words.

Dyes are not perfect. They have some unwanted absorptions. The cyan dye absorbs mostly red light, but it also absorbs some green light. To compensate for this unwanted absorption, a colored coupler is added to the red sensitive layer. This colored coupler is magenta to start with, but it loses the magenta color and forms cyan dye during development. This means that while the red layer has a negative dye image in cyan dye it has a positive dye image in the unused magenta colored coupler. This magenta image offsets the unwanted green light absorption of the cyan dye.

The magenta dye in the green sensitive layers absorbs mostly green light but also has some unwanted absorption of blue light. A yellow colored magenta dye forming coupler is added to the green layer.

The yellow dye in the blue sensitive layers absorbs mostly blue light, but also absorbs some UV energy. Since we can't see UV energy, we don't have to compensate for it.

With magenta colored and yellow colored coupler added to the film, the minimum density (Dmin) areas are orange colored. This color is in the emulsion layers, not in the plastic support.

I've never tried cross processing so I can't comment on it.

A mask is different from a filter because a mask has lighter areas and darker areas. A filter has uniform lightness across the whole image (except as defined in US patent 5972585, but that is another story).



This is gibberish.
From a traditional photographic perspective, an interpositive (short for intermediate positive) is a negative image created by a positive process....

This is not correct.
The camera negative is exposed to positive film stock in a liquid environment - termed a wet gate - where the film stock is exposed using a contact process, so creating a like image (in effect, retaining the image in its negative -- i.e. "reversed" -- form) on the positive film stock, as an intermediate step, hence the term intermediate positive.

Positive Print film (I've never heard of the term positive film stock) - is a specialty film for making release prints (exhibition prints). Don't let the name confuse you. It's not a film to make a positive image print from an interpostive. It's very fine grained, slow film for making positive image release prints from a negative or internegative. (Note: I know this term is used for b&w. I don't know for sure if it's used for color.) There are also duplicating films.

Wet transfer film gate - A machine that uses one or two projectors to project an image into the lens of a lab film camera. It's not for making contact prints. And as far as I know it's only used for producing special effects from a "B roll" (thus the need for two projectors), film restoration and digitally scanning film.

This text appears here and there across the Internet. Can't tell where it originated. Maybe it once made sense but was shortened and corrupted?

Ignore.
 
Last edited:

Mendel

Senior Member.
positive film stock
I took that to refer to the sort of film used to take diapositives: the film stock in the camera is developed into a positive (clouds are white, sky is blue etc.), see-through (greek "dia"=through) picture, which is typically framed and projected.

You could use that kind of film to copy a negative without an intermediate step.
 
Top