peoplemerge
Allowing Ads
Hey all,
Anyone looking for an incredibly slow 35mm film for cheap, I tested this recently. If you roll it yourself you can find it on ebay for really, really cheap by 100s of feet, or individual rolls via the purveyors of the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/kodak2238Project
For me, it was more an experiment in getting dialed into film testing. Someone on the fb group figured this film around ISO 16 with HC-110E in 8m.
Prior to this, I calibrated my enlarger to Delta 100 at ISO 100. This took some work because of a variance of .2 stops between tests; switching to a measured-light metrolux timer, the variance between tests went down to 0.
Test Conditions:
HC110 (dilution E) 1+47 at 70F
Agitation: Jobo CPP2 on P
Now, what are we to learn from the data?
1.
2.
3.
An observation: it seems like with this film, adding a lot of development (4 mins -> 16m) doesn't buy you a lot of film speed.
4.
5.
6.
My first take was if you want the ISO I recommended shooting a roll on ISO 8 and developing 1:47 for 12:40 at 70F (14:04 at 68F). I would need to run a test with hand processing to see what the time adjustment should be. Am I right that once adjusted, the charts and curves should work as-is, right?
Looking at graph 5, average gradient of about 5.8 will deliver EFS 8: that's how I think I came to the 12:40 time: (graph 2: 5.8 in the av. gradient earlier graph vs dev time).
However I was a little miffed that it isn't exactly where the grey iso triangle sits. I confirmed that choosing a landscape with a typical contrast range (I didn't have my spotmeter so I didn't measure carefully), develop and see if I can print on contrast 2 paper.
This was no problem. Densities look generally good. (Some of the really thin ones where on another camera, a Canon EOS 3, where I was shooting as if it were on Aperture priority, but it was on Manual).
However, now I'm reading BTZS, "Although it isn’t mentioned in the specifications, the ISO standard curve has a Ḡ value of about 0.62." [Davis, Phil. Beyond the Zone System (p. 33). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.]. Here, I guess I goofed, and I'm really looking at a dev time of more like around 15m [figure #2]. But the ISO triangle Fig #1, doesn't that have it under 8m? These negs, on a light table, look to the naked eye a bit on the dense side, even when you factor in a high contrast scene.
What am I missing in understanding my own data?
Anyone looking for an incredibly slow 35mm film for cheap, I tested this recently. If you roll it yourself you can find it on ebay for really, really cheap by 100s of feet, or individual rolls via the purveyors of the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/groups/kodak2238Project
For me, it was more an experiment in getting dialed into film testing. Someone on the fb group figured this film around ISO 16 with HC-110E in 8m.
Prior to this, I calibrated my enlarger to Delta 100 at ISO 100. This took some work because of a variance of .2 stops between tests; switching to a measured-light metrolux timer, the variance between tests went down to 0.
Test Conditions:
HC110 (dilution E) 1+47 at 70F
Agitation: Jobo CPP2 on P
Now, what are we to learn from the data?
1.
2.
3.
An observation: it seems like with this film, adding a lot of development (4 mins -> 16m) doesn't buy you a lot of film speed.
4.
6.
My first take was if you want the ISO I recommended shooting a roll on ISO 8 and developing 1:47 for 12:40 at 70F (14:04 at 68F). I would need to run a test with hand processing to see what the time adjustment should be. Am I right that once adjusted, the charts and curves should work as-is, right?
Looking at graph 5, average gradient of about 5.8 will deliver EFS 8: that's how I think I came to the 12:40 time: (graph 2: 5.8 in the av. gradient earlier graph vs dev time).
However I was a little miffed that it isn't exactly where the grey iso triangle sits. I confirmed that choosing a landscape with a typical contrast range (I didn't have my spotmeter so I didn't measure carefully), develop and see if I can print on contrast 2 paper.
This was no problem. Densities look generally good. (Some of the really thin ones where on another camera, a Canon EOS 3, where I was shooting as if it were on Aperture priority, but it was on Manual).
However, now I'm reading BTZS, "Although it isn’t mentioned in the specifications, the ISO standard curve has a Ḡ value of about 0.62." [Davis, Phil. Beyond the Zone System (p. 33). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.]. Here, I guess I goofed, and I'm really looking at a dev time of more like around 15m [figure #2]. But the ISO triangle Fig #1, doesn't that have it under 8m? These negs, on a light table, look to the naked eye a bit on the dense side, even when you factor in a high contrast scene.
What am I missing in understanding my own data?
