Developing ultra low ISO films for direct duplicating

[lamerko]

I have a Kodak LPD4 - it's interesting for a toy. I did a test to determine the sensitivity and condition of the film (expired in 1995) - it doesn't seem to have deteriorated noticeably. Its range is extremely narrow. For this reason, dynamic scenes cannot be captured unless the dark or light part is "sacrificed". I would shoot it at 0.8 / 1.5 / 3 ISO for each scene.
I processed the first test in D96 together with a 5222 - it was really strange to take a negative and a slide out of the Jobo
This happens with one stop difference - there is simply no room for error...

 

[Don_ih]

Its range is extremely narrow.

That's my experience, also. I was attempting to use it to make slightly more dense copies of negatives - no way. You can make an exact copy or you can make clear or you can make mud.

 

[O z]

I got some 30 meters of the film and i've been experimenting with it for a while in combination with home brewed Rodinal.

A follow up question regarding Kodak-2612 film: Does the attached negative look fogged/over developed to you? It was over-fixed and washed to eliminate fixer as a suspected cause of the darkened film edges.


Kodak 2612, shot @ EI 12
(Feather was white to dark gray)
Developed in Rodinal 1+75 (5+395ml) @ 20°C for 18 minutes.
Agitation: 1st minute then 10 seconds every 3 minutes.
———

Screenshot showing a quick inversion of the negative using a free app called negative video.
———
I'm struggling to pin down the exact time needed to fully develop the negative, acquire maximum possible tonal range and avoid developing chemical fog. Any recommendations or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

When I used the same dilution of Rodinal for 17, 16 or even 15 minutes the film cleared to a transparent base as it should, but the negatives become way thinner and when scanned they’re too dark as if they were underdeveloped.

 

[MarkS]

When I worked for Kodak, we used LPD4 and LPD7 (thicker base) for high-contrast work (like title slides). It is a direct-positive film as discussed above. We also used its negative-working siblings, LPF4 and LPF7. (Those films were exactly two steps faster than the LPDs.) We processed those sheet films in an RA "rapid access"processing machine, which used an energetic developer similar to paper developer. Of course we didn't want any midtones, and didn't get any. Digital imaging and PowerPoint put and end to all that, though.
Trying to get continuous tone out of the LPD and LPF films will be a long and frustrating journey- it might be possible, but the odds will be against you. Also note that they are blue-sensitive films so even if you could get something like continuous tones, they will resemble wet-plate collodion images rather than any modern camera film.

 

[koraks]

Does the attached negative look fogged/over developed to you?

Massively! Just look at the density around the sprocket holes.

It was over-fixed and washed to eliminate fixer as a suspected cause of the darkened film edges.

Alleged "over"fixing has nothing to do with the excessive fog on that strip of film. It's pretty hard to 'over-fix' film to begin with, and if it were to happen, it wouldn't cause fogging.

 

[O z]

Massively! Just look at the density around the sprocket holes.

Thanks for your input, Koraks! Please elaborate if you have suggestions on how to get the best out this film. Do you think it would help if I exposed @EI 10 or 8 (or lower) and developed for 15 minutes instead of 18?

Alleged "over"fixing has nothing to do with the excessive fog on that strip of film. It's pretty hard to 'over-fix' film to begin with, and if it were to happen, it wouldn't cause fogging.

Noted. Thanks for explaining. I only did that because someone suggested (on a previous post) that the film I shared then wasn’t fixed enough.
———
Kindly note that this film is pretty old as it appears, and without being able to find any technical data about it specifically, I only know what I’ve tried (and mostly failed) to do with it:
So far, I’ve noticed that it handles exposure up to EI 0.16 but it starts fogging in Rodinal 1+100 after 15 minutes maximum regardless of the exposure. I was thinking a certain amount of age-fog is expected and manageable after scanning, considering that thinner negatives (associated with clear perforations) looked considerably underdeveloped when scanned, while denser negatives (associated with a slightly fogged/darkened perforations) look somewhat well developed.

I’d love to be able to use this film for practice, especially after I discovered that my local lab has an unopened 400ft reel of the film stock in storage and they’re willing to sell it to me to practice with at a huge discount. Your advice would enable me to keep practicing for many more months without breaking the bank, and would be greatly appreciated!

 

[koraks]

If it's old film, there's not a whole lot you can do to cut fog down to a very low level. It may help to give more exposure, use a developer that has a restrainer like bromide or benzotriazole in it (or add it to an existing developer) and cut development time back. Rodinal may not be your best bet either way.

 

[Ben Hutcherson]

This thread is timely for me as I have a 70mm x 125ft roll of LPD4 on the way...

I won't be able to resist trying to get pictoral contrast out of it, but it sounds like its real value may be in making positives of my 70mm negatives. At least 125mm is a respectable amount to play with.

 

[lamerko]

This thread is timely for me as I have a 70mm x 125ft roll of LPD4 on the way...

I won't be able to resist trying to get pictoral contrast out of it, but it sounds like its real value may be in making positives of my 70mm negatives. At least 125mm is a respectable amount to play with.

You will get negatives again...

 

[O z]

It may help to give more exposure, use a developer that has a restrainer like bromide or benzotriazole in it (or add it to an existing developer) and cut development time back. Rodinal may not be your best bet either way.

Thanks! Makes sense.
Unfortunately, I don’t have access to neither KBR nor Benzotriazole at the moment but will keep looking for them.

Regarding the use of Rodinal:
When I started experimenting with this film I only had D76 to work with, I tried it stock and in 1+1 dilution but I didn’t like the extreme contrast and graininess of the results I got.
I then went to the opposite direction and tried ID-3 (mixed according to the darkroom cookbook recipe), It’s supposed to reduce the extreme contrast a bit, but the results I’ve gotten (so far) look flat and underdeveloped. I didn’t hate the results but further tests are needed to determine the right combination of exposure/development-time.
In my short experience, Rodinal produced the most acceptable results so I decided to concentrate on it for now to establish a baseline. If successful, then I can try to see if it’s possible to achieve similar or better results using other developers.

 

[O z]

Regarding the use of Rodinal:

Unedited Scan (Compressed using WhatsApp) | Click the image for full-size.
Film: Kodak 2612 @ ISO 3
Developer: Rodinal 1+75 @20°c for 18 minutes. | Agitation: Continues for the 1st minute then for 10 seconds every 3 minutes.
———

This is what the negative looks like
———

This snapshot taken with my phone shows the colors of the fruits. Does that mean the film is definitely Orthochromatic?

 

[koraks]

I didn’t like the extreme contrast and graininess of the results I got.

Contrast is a function of inherent contrast of the film, lighting of the scene, development and exposure choices. You want less contrast with the same film and the same kind of lighting (scene brightness range), develop less. If you develop less, you may lose a little shadow highlight, which you can compensate for by giving slightly more exposure.

Does that mean the film is definitely Orthochromatic?

Actually, it looks like a blue-sensitive emulsion to me, not orthochromatic. I've shot blue-sensitive xray film that yielded very similar tonal rendition. It's somewhat reminiscent of wet plate as well, but without the typical image defects.

 

[O z]

Contrast is a function of inherent contrast of the film, lighting of the scene, development and exposure choices. You want less contrast with the same film and the same kind of lighting (scene brightness range), develop less. If you develop less, you may lose a little shadow highlight, which you can compensate for by giving slightly more exposure.

Makes perfect sense. Thank you!

it looks like a blue-sensitive emulsion to me, not orthochromatic.

I’ll research further, but would you please elaborate a bit on the difference between blue sensitive emulsions and orthochromatic emulsions? I was under the impression that both terms refer to emulsions that are generally not sensitive to red.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration, I appreciate it!

 

[koraks]

the difference between blue sensitive emulsions and orthochromatic emulsions

Here's a quick & dirty overlay of the spectral sensitivity of 3 different films:
An Agfa blue-sensitive x-ray film (blue line)
Ilford Ortho orthochromatic film (green line)
Ilford FP4+ panchromatic film (red line)

Note how all these films are sensitive to blue light.
The orthochromatic film is sensitive to blue + green light. This is the definition of orthochromatic sensitivity.
The panchromatic film is sensitive to all visible light.
I could have also plotted IR-sensitive film, which would have extended past the cutoff point of the panchromatic film.

So all orthochromatic film is blue-sensitive, but not all blue-sensitive film is also orthochromatic. But both orthochromatic and blue-sensitive films are (virtually) insensitive to red light; this property they have in common.

Hope this clears it up.

 

[O z]

Here's a quick & dirty overlay of the spectral sensitivity of 3 different films:
An Agfa blue-sensitive x-ray film (blue line)
Ilford Ortho orthochromatic film (green line)
Ilford FP4+ panchromatic film (red line)
View attachment 387734
Note how all these films are sensitive to blue light.
The orthochromatic film is sensitive to blue + green light. This is the definition of orthochromatic sensitivity.
The panchromatic film is sensitive to all visible light.
I could have also plotted IR-sensitive film, which would have extended past the cutoff point of the panchromatic film.

So all orthochromatic film is blue-sensitive, but not all blue-sensitive film is also orthochromatic. But both orthochromatic and blue-sensitive films are (virtually) insensitive to red light; this property they have in common.

Hope this clears it up.

Thank you very much, Koraks! That makes perfect sense and it points me to the right direction.
Have a great day!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Does that mean the film is definitely Orthochromatic?

Sure looks that way. I'd have said blue-sensitive, but the dark green of the table top is lighter than the brighter of the oranges. There's clearly at least some green sensitivity there.

 

[koraks]

the dark green of the table top is lighter than the brighter of the oranges.

It's a quasi-reflective surface. The fact that it's lighter is caused by scattering, by the looks of it; not due to its color and the spectral sensitivity of the film.
Note the yellow lemons. They appear as dark as the oranges. They would have been noticeably lighter on an orthochromatic film.

 

[lamerko]

But the green stalk of the fruit is very clearly visible - in my opinion, the film is sensitive to green.

 

[koraks]

But the green stalk of the fruit is very clearly visible - in my opinion, the film is sensitive to green.

That's likely just the way it was lit. You can make a black object come out light-colored if you want. I've shot plenty of blue-sensitive film and plenty of green-sensitive film. This looks like the former, not the latter. The way the fruit renders is a clear giveaway.

Why don't we have a vote on it. The majority vote will become reality. We'll tell the film that it will have to conform what people think. Come to think of it, I think we should that for all technical topics.

 

[O z]

Following the discussion. Thank you all for your input!

I noticed that the film (KODAK 2612) when loaded in daylight (or even in shade), that tends to cause an issue of light piping, and the first few (up to 7) frames when developed will have a vertical and uniform light-leak across the frame. I read about this issue yesterday in association with blue-sensitive film, but I’m a beginner so, I don’t know if orthochromatic film share the same characteristic/issue. Maybe the attached scans can offer more information about whether or not the film is green-sensitive?


I don’t have enough knowledge to make a claim, but when I look at the comparative spectral sensitivity chart that koraks shared earlier, I see that even the blue-sensitive film’s curve appears to cover some green.


is that specific to Agfa blue-sensitive X-ray film or is that the case (in general) for all blue-sensitive films?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Why don't we have a vote on it.

Or someone could just shoot a color chart so you can't argue with the results...

 

[Donald Qualls]

I read about this issue yesterday in association with blue-sensitive film but I’m a beginner so I don’t know if orthochromatic film share the same characteristic/issue.

This is more due to the base material than to the sensitivity of the emulsion. There are a number of panchromatic and even super-panchromatic (extended red sensitivity) films with the same concern.

 

[koraks]

is that specific to Agfa blue-sensitive X-ray film or is that the case (in general) for all blue-sensitive films?

Only that particular film. Don't assume it's representative for your particular film.

Maybe the attached scans can offer more information about whether or not the film is green-sensitive?

Not really.

 

[O z]

I also came across this review yesterday about Svema MZ-3 film: https://www.jeremymuddphoto.com/blog/2020/1/13/embracing-weird-and-unusual-film-svema-mz-3
I reached out to the author (Jeremy Mudd) thinking that it might be the same film (or similar) and he was kind enough to dig up the negative sleeves he has and check the edge-code. It was great talking with him. I learned a lot, but unfortunately, it turned out that it’s not the same film. His negatives only have “K•ODAK” without any numbers after it on the perforations.

 

[O z]

Only that particular film. Don't assume it's representative for your particular film.

Noted.

Not really.

I can shoot a test roll using green subjects and share better results soon.