(E-E) Ev.g.e.n.i.j ..K.o.z.l.o.v Berlin |
|
home // E-E // biographie // art // eros // Leningrad 80s // Valentin Kozlov // 2 x 3m // events // sitemap // kontakt /
 / |
(E-E) Ev.g.e.n.i.j ..K.o.z.l.o.v Berlin |
|
home // E-E // biographie // art // eros // Leningrad 80s // Valentin Kozlov // 2 x 3m // events // sitemap // kontakt /
/ |
(E-E) Evgenij Kozlov: Leningrad 80s >> ART>>
Reconstructing E-E KOZLOV's photo archive from the 1980s
|
Chapter 8. Reassembling filmstrips to their original sequence To reassemble the filmstrips to their original order, I made Xerox copies of the new contact sheets displaying my hand-written frame numbers and inventory numbers. Likewise, I made Xerox copies of the vintage contact sheets in case no negatives were available for new prints, adding the inventory numbers to the copies. Obviously, the quality of the images got worse with the copying process. It was, however, still good enough to work with the copies – but only in combination with the original material, negatives and contact prints, which I always checked for details. In many instances, the quality of edge numbers and imprints is so poor that they can only be read on the negatives. To establish the original sequence of the film frames, I cut all filmstrips from the Xerox copies so that I could re-distribute them on Din A4 pages. In other words, my intention was to recreate, on each of those DinA4 pages, a film, or a fraction thereof, in the order it had been shot. These new pages were to become the material I would work with most of the time. Since each paper strip has its own, unique number “inherited” from the contact sheet (30011 etc), it can easily be traced back to “its” contact sheet in the respective folder.This is where the fun started. Assembling filmstrips was like putting together a huge jigsaw puzzle, though a puzzle with missing pieces, and that was the challenge. As with a puzzle, there were two aspects that helped solving it: subject matter and technical features. The first aspect refers to what the images on a contact sheet actually display. In case the images were similar, I checked whether the technical features of the respective filmstrips made it plausible that they belonged to the same film. This leads us to the second aspect, the features proper to Svema and Tasma films discussed earlier. The most important feature is the dated company imprint on Svema and Tasma film edges. In Kozlov’s archive, identical numbers often appear on two different films, and 13 CBEMA M1 85 even appears on three films (AJ, CF, CI), which probably means that Kozlov bought them together, from the same lot. It nevertheless reduced the number of possibilities of placing the pieces of the puzzle – at least to a degree, because, unfortunately, the imprints are by far not printed on each frame edge. As a matter of fact, on 13CBEMA M1 85 and many other Svema films, they are distributed at intervals of eight and a half frames. Taking into account that Kozlov cut the negatives into segments consisting of six frames at the most, it is very likely to get one of these filmstrips without any imprint, and then it cannot be identified.
In terms of statistics, the shorter the filmstrip, the higher the probability that it goes without an imprint. Single negatives – negatives cut on both sides, of which there are quite many – have a probability of 12 per cent to carry a full imprint. In this regard, undated Tasma films are slightly better, as they have an imprint frequency of five and a half frames, though the (relatively) large number of 6 Tasma and 27 Tasma films negates this advantage. Some dated Svema films with smaller intervals (four and a half frames) also exist. Therefore, other properties of the films are also important to reconnect the pieces: the distribution of numbers along the sprocket holes, numbers ascending, descending, mirrored, or no numbers at all etc. Typical features are the individual “look” of numbers – whether they are small or large, faded or clearly visible – and their exact location on a film edge. Furthermore, the asymmetric position of the frames caused by the FED-2 camera helps to identify filmstrips from the same film, just as other marks left by the sprocket teeth, for instance single and double lines along the film edges.
Last but not least, some negative films have a slightly brownish tone instead of the typical grey gradations of black and white film negative films, perhaps caused by the developer. All these technical features were decisive when it came to reconstruct films consisting of some “scattered” fragments that not only display entirely different events, but are also disconnected from each other. A 8 CBEMA M10 83 film (AE) presents three such (partly) disconnected fragments, each of them from a different vintage print.
Two film strips with eight pictures in total (the eighth picture being a half frame) are from a concert of the Kino band; their numbers are descending and connect to each other: 66 to 61 (three frames, filmstrip number 30536) and 60 to 51 (four and a half frames, filmstrip number 31081), respectively. The first strip carries the 8 CBEMA M10 83 imprint, but the second doesn't, which conforms to the general imprint frequency rule of Svema films, where we would expect to have the next imprint on picture 50/49. The third strip with four frames (filmstrip 30985) sees Kozlov standing near the Hermitage Bridge; the numbers are 14 to 7.
It also has the 8 CBEMA M10 83 imprint but is disconnected from the others, and thus might be from another film carrying the same imprint. However, when we compare it to the other two strips, we note that all frames touch the lower film perforation in exactly the same way. This is a strong argument in favour of a single film. Consequently, if we manage to establish the exact date of the Kino concert, then we also get the – approximate – date for the pictures at the Hermitage Bridge. There is, nevertheless, an irrefutable proof of two strips belonging together: when the cut ends match perfectly. Because Evgenij Kozlov cut the filmstrips with a pair of scissors, the cuts are always slightly irregular. For instance, they may be diagonal and cut through a sprocket hole, or be a little rounded, and then you get one concave and one convex end. In such cases, we can indeed speak of the pieces of a puzzle falling in place.
© Hannelore Fobo / text / pictures / lay-out © (E-E) Evgenij Kozlov / artwork Uploaded 3 May 2021 |
|
home // E-E // biographie // art // eros // Leningrad 80s // Valentin Kozlov // 2 x 3m // events // sitemap // kontakt /
|
