Developing ultra low ISO films for direct duplicating
-
A
- Thread starter svetoklik
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale Steal a Wollensak 10 inch Telephoto for 4x5
- Started by Gaston 012
-
Free Rando RZ67 Spare Parts
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
For Sale Jollylook DIY Instax Square ejection mechanism
- Started by RoboRepublic
-
For Sale FS: Rittreck 5x7 Metal Field Camera
- Started by B.S.Kumar
Forum statistics
That's in itself a commendable effort. To get started, I would suggest to do the following:
* Provide examples of the kinds of films you'd group under this category; i.e. brand & product names.
* List the various approaches & solutions you've been able to find using online searches. There are lots of threads and pages discussing this challenge, and to have all information in one place, a logical start would be to list the most notable ones in this place.
* Provide your experience so far and any experiments you may have performed.
It doesn't work. Copy films only get more contrasty (more black-and-white) the less exposure you give them (by increasing the ISO). It's the mid tones that are missing in copy films and only reducing the ISO can provide enough exposure to create a suitable mid tone. This can be compensated for by a carefully chosen developer but it rarely works to the point that the gains outweigh the losses unless you are using a combination capable of a full tonal range like CMS20 and Adotech IV developer. This has to be used in the 3 to 12 ISO region. Go any higher than 20 ISO and CMS20 is back to being a copy film.
It is Kodak 2468 and I do not have any personal experience in using it.
I will search for it and make post here.
Thanks! I will survive with ISO 12.
Have I understand correctly, I need more baths of different developers to save tonality?
is about iso 1. Shoot it at 12, it'll be blank. What you're asking for is something that can increase the sensitivity of the film, but even increasing it by one stop is just moving it to iso2. .... And the film is even doubtfully at iso1. This is a film that, if you want to use it in a camera, you should have a tripod , a meter, a shutter cable, and a watch. There are no cameras I know of that will meter and autoexpose at iso1.
Scanning does well with thin film but it doesn't create detail where none exists.
This particular film has practically no latitude. You really need to hit the proper exposure to get a result - which you can then scan.
Calling Nocton for help here.
I do not know that film. But in general you are going to be limited to low contrast developers and development techniques. One such commercial developer is ADOX HR-Dev. SPUR Nanontech UR is another. If no one has better specific suggestions, you might start there. If you want to try a general purpose developer, you'd want it to be pretty dilute, and use a water stop. POTA is often used for this as a homebrew dev. But it is speed losing for sure.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2004
- Messages
- 496
If I'm correct, films "for direct duplicating" are graphic arts films designed to make a direct positive image. They use enormous amounts of exposure to essentially solarize/reverse during exposure and would then be developed in an ordinary paper or graphic-arts developer (not a reversal process).
I used several of these films over the years in the lab; Kodak made several kinds over time. Is this the sort of film you want to use? If so, they are entirely impractical for in-camera use.
If you mean document films, microfilms, Tech Pan, etc., forgive me for going off-topic.
I used several of these films over the years in the lab; Kodak made several kinds over time. Is this the sort of film you want to use? If so, they are entirely impractical for in-camera use.
If you mean document films, microfilms, Tech Pan, etc., forgive me for going off-topic.
If they worked that way, reducing exposure would generate a negative. Think of this film as having gone through half the steps of reversal processing. It's been exposed, developed, and bleached back - but not yet re-exposed, re-developed, and fixed. Although that's probably not what they did to make it.
No, quite opposite. Thank you for participating and explanation of nature and use of this emulsion. It will be much easier to understand it limits.
"If they worked that way, reducing exposure would generate a negative"
It will be of interest to make experiment.
Two facts are for sure here, extreme resolving power and ultra fine grain from what we can conclude why is so low ISO present.
How to make grain bigger in order to get more sensitivity for light beside push developing?
No, you can't save tonality either by increasing the ISO or whatever 'using more baths' means. There is essentially one copy film available at the moment that can get away with producing normal tonality, and that is CMS20 II when combined with it's dedicated developer Adotech IV. But to do that you have to reduce the ISO of the film from 20 ISO to say 6 ISO and not increase the ISO which is what you are asking about.
Using copy films for their very fine grain is not new, way back when ADOX made the original CMS20 in 120 format many photographers were using it for pictorial work and processing it in 'specialist' developers (at least then) such as Pyro based developers. But it was a tightrope and success would often depend on the contrast range of the scene, and the fact that the differences between exposing it at 3 ISO, or 6 ISO could be profound. But get it right and the results are fantastic. But you are asking how to go in the opposite direction and increase the ISO and I'm not sure you are grasping the impossibility of this, it's a pipe dream. If you want fine grain you would be better trying to master Ilford PanF at 50 ISO, difficult enough but not impossible.
I said that part in quotes because the direct positive films do not work that way. If you reduce exposure, you get less on the film.
is exactly right.
Direct Positive films did this. Copy films, as noted above, was another name for document films, typically very high contrast and very high resolution, requiring special developers to give pictorial contrast. Then there were "print films" which were just very slow, but otherwise ordinary negative films (ORWO DN21, aka Lomography Kino Berlin, is this sort); they were used in high speed printers to make distribution positives ("prints") from edited cine negatives.
No, that's not it at all. Direct Positive films have been fogged (these days, usually chemically, as is the case with Harman Direct Positive printing paper) to the level where additional exposure reduces density, rather than increasing it. Films made before about 1950 (and a few later ones) would "solarize" this way -- this is the cause of the Ansel Adams image titled "Black Sun" -- but modern films don't shoulder off this way (in fact, tabular grain films remain nearly linear to ridiculous exposure levels, at least in the right developer).
If you were to expose (evenly, like a preflash), develop, and bleach a common film, then dry it in the dark and return it to the camera, you'd get a negative after exposing an image and developing (with some loss of film speed if you flashed enough to produce actual density vs. the sub-Zone I exposure usually used for flashing). You get a positive with a reversal process because the film is exposed at approximately its normal film speed, developed (often more than would be the case for negatives), then only the developed silver image bleached away by a process that dissolves it, rather than converting it to fixer-soluble form as would be done with, say, C-41. What's left is whatever halide wasn't originally developed, which will form a positive image when reexposed and developed.
I was thinking a bit backwards, I guess. But the salient fact remains that reducing exposure of Direct Positive films will not result in a negative (which I wrote as a response to "enormous amounts of exposure to essentially solarize", which I'd mistakenly assumed was claiming the film was not prefogged but just specified to receive a major overload of exposure).
And now that you mention it, I already knew Direct Positive film was prefogged in that way....
It is Kodak 2468 16mm
I need recommendations for the lenses that is able to follow resolving power of this 2468 Kodak.
Here is the links with examples:
Some of them come out with green cast and only one has good contrast:
www.lomography.com
microfilm/photos
These ones where edited in Photoshop:
For developing there is some practice with more diluted HC110 and extended times.
Do some one has experience with Pota developers?
Here is the links with examples:
Some of them come out with green cast and only one has good contrast:
Lomography
We absolutely love creative photography. Discover a huge range of cameras, lenses, accessories and films to experiment with. Become part of our fun community, share your fantastic photos with friends and read the latest photography tips, news and features.
These ones where edited in Photoshop:
For developing there is some practice with more diluted HC110 and extended times.
Do some one has experience with Pota developers?
Hi everyone
Thanks for creating and contributing to this thread. it was very helpful reading your discussion above.
I've been trying to identify a Kodak film (2612) for months using google to no avail. I think the film behaves in a slimier manner to the films mentioned above in terms of low speed and extreme contrast, and I think it might be orthochromatic as well. I got some 30 meters of the film and i've been experimenting with it for a while in combination with home brewed Rodinal.
Shot on Kodak 2612 @EI 0.16
Developed in Rodinal 1+100
(unedited scan, file was compressed using WhatsApp to reduce size)
Here’s a link to the most presentable scans of a Kodak 2612 test roll I’ve gotten so far. I’d like to know what you think and I’d appreciate if you have tips, suggestions or any information about the specific film.
I shot this roll using different estimations of ISO between 0.16 and 200, Developed it in Rodinal 1+100 for 18 minutes with agitation for the first minute then for about 10 seconds every 3 minutes.
Thanks for creating and contributing to this thread. it was very helpful reading your discussion above.
I've been trying to identify a Kodak film (2612) for months using google to no avail. I think the film behaves in a slimier manner to the films mentioned above in terms of low speed and extreme contrast, and I think it might be orthochromatic as well. I got some 30 meters of the film and i've been experimenting with it for a while in combination with home brewed Rodinal.
Shot on Kodak 2612 @EI 0.16
Developed in Rodinal 1+100
(unedited scan, file was compressed using WhatsApp to reduce size)
Here’s a link to the most presentable scans of a Kodak 2612 test roll I’ve gotten so far. I’d like to know what you think and I’d appreciate if you have tips, suggestions or any information about the specific film.
I shot this roll using different estimations of ISO between 0.16 and 200, Developed it in Rodinal 1+100 for 18 minutes with agitation for the first minute then for about 10 seconds every 3 minutes.
Last edited:
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |