Kodak Direct Duplicating Film

[jnovek]

On a whim I bought 1000 feet of this stuff for $20 on eBay. I know little about it. Has anybody here used this stuff for... anything?

I do know that its sensitivity chart seems to indicate that it's orthochromatic. And from what I've read, it is supposed to be a direct-positive film.

Any thoughts on what to rate this stuff at? I know that a lot of these duplicating/industrial/medical/etc. films are really quite slow -- ~ISO 3 or slower. Is that the case with this one?

Any guesses on what's going to happen when I run this stuff through a camera and develop it in normal darkroom chemicals? Nice photos? Total destruction of film and chemicals? A rift in the space-time continuum?

Jason

 

[jnovek]

By the way, this film's magic Kodak number is 2470.

If anyone is feeling as foolish as I am, here it is on eBay.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...&_trkparms=algo=LVI&its=I&otn=1#ht_500wt_1182

Keep in mind, it's expired and I have no idea if it even has sprocket holes.

 

[mattmoy_2000]

It's microfilm, so will have a very slow emulsion (probably single figures) and will be very high contrast. At a guess, expose a test roll at EI 6 (six) and bracket every shot by two stops (be sure to note what EI each frame is exposed at - I tested my microfilm by taking pictures on a timer of myself holding a sheet with the EI on it).
Stand-dev in Rodinal 1:100 for an hour or so (This will reduce the contrast to pictorial levels and also eliminates worry about over/under development), and find which EI gives the best tonal range by seeing which images have best shadow detail without blocking up the highlights.
I've got a hundred feet of kodak recordak from about 1953 which I did this successfully with. I'm yet to find a use for 800 exposures worth of fifty-four year old microfilm, but I'm pretty sure it's gonna involve a lot of blur-motion pictures!

EDIT: Don't worry about it being expired. My ancient stuff had no fog; microfilm is too slow to worry about that! It won't ruin your chems, but you will need to use a low-contrast developer such as stand-rodinal or technidol/its clones.

 

[jeffreyg]

I am not familiar with the film you bought, but I am very familiar with Kodak dental x-ray duplicating film which may be the same emulsion. i have used it for many years both to duplicate x-ray film and to enlarge negatives for platinum/palladium contact printing. It comes in sheet form and I have used it both in contact exposure and under an enlarger. It is SLOW but I do not know the iso. I develop and fix with Kodak GBX developer and corresponding fixer with a water stop in between. If it is the same emulsion I would use the GBX chemistry which you may be able to get from a dental supply or have your dentist order for you. It costs about $16 for a twin pack - enough to make one gallon each of dev. and fix which last approx. 30 days. The sheet film is excellent for enlarging negatives. Hope this is of some help.

 

[jnovek]

Matt,

I'm in luck b/c Rodinal is my primary dev. Although I don't normally do stand development, but that's just fine.

Jeff,

Off topic, but I enlarge onto Arista litho paper for contact prints -- it's a real pain to control the contrast, esp. because I have to expose an inter-negative or use a reversal process. How does GBX do for contrast?

Jason

 

[jeffreyg]

The dental x-ray duplicating film with the GBX chemistry gives very accurate reproduction of the original - perhaps slightly more contrasty. You can modify the contrast by development time. It is all quite easy to use. Typical enlargements of a negative that prints well at a grade 3 with my Aristo Grid Lamp VCL4500 enlarger light source can require up to 3 minutes exposure with the lamp setting at grade 1 and lens aperture of 4 or 5.6 on a height for an 8x10. Agfa also makes a similar film which may be available in a larger size. I have used that as well also with the GBX chemistry but not recently. A couple of years ago I printed a limited edition series of four images in platinum/palladium/gold for a photographer named Mario Algaze from his negatives that we enlarged from 2 1/4 sq to 7in using that system with outstanding results. Check him out I know he has a web site.
Jeff

 

[jeffreyg]

I forgot to mention that the film I've been talking about is a reversal film so not interim steps are necessary.
Jeff

 

[Denis K]

Just for reference I've heard the same story about solarization explaining the reversal process as in this web posting:

http://www.freelists.org/post/rollei_list/new-direct-bW-slide-film-by-Rollei

For what it is worth, I can't see how solarization could explain how DR film perfectly reverses the normal film curve either. None the less, if you look at the Kodak data sheet the negative curve is as nice as you could ever want. Too bad the EI is like a negative number or I would try it in a camera.

Denis K

 

[jeffreyg]

The x-ray duplicating film I have been describing is intended to directly duplicate an x-ray film on to another piece of film with no inter-negative required. It is a contact print that can be made by placing the x-ray film directly over the duplicating film in a printing frame and exposing with a regular light source. I use it in my dental practice to make copies of x-rays when needed. At some point when I became interested in platinum/palladium printing I tried it to enlarge 2 1/4 and 4x5 negatives for contact printing. Much to my pleasure it worked perfect and produced all the tonal ranges. I have a portfolio in the APUG portfolios section under recent page 2. Many of those prints have been done with negatives I enlarged as described. It is a simple albeit time consuming technique.
Jeff

 

[nworth]

Try exposing a couple of frames at EI 6, bracketing a couple of stops on each side, and then develop in something that works with everything - say Dektol 1+2 or DK-50. Then you can assess the film. You should expect high contrast, especially if you use Dektol. If it is a direct duplicating film, you will get a positive, probably with a fair amount of base fog. If it is microfilm, you will get an extreme contrast negative. The contrast can be cured by using one of the "document film" developers (e.g. Technidol, POTA and its kin, etc,).

 

[jnovek]

Well, now I'm really intrigued.

First of all, how does one pre-solarize film? Is that simply the same as fogging the film, since there is no image yet to overexpose?

If the film is pre-solarized, I wonder how age and exposure variation will affect it? I'm certainly well-accustomed to the behavior of negative films and reversal films, but now this is a whole other thing (that I didn't even know existed, to be honest). I have plenty to experiment with, since I'm the proud owner of 1000 feet of the stuff.

Jason

 

[Domin]

I've considered that film, but it's too horribly SLOW for me. It is not even close to the 6 someone suggested.

http://graphics.kodak.com/docimagin...ing_Films/Specifications/Spec_Sheet/index.htm

At the bottom there's suggested EI. Its 0.12

 

[Denis K]

I've considered that film, but it's too horribly SLOW for me. It is not even close to the 6 someone suggested.

At the bottom there's suggested EI. Its 0.12

That would be 125th of a second at f/0.5 on a sunny day; although DOF might be problem.

Looking at it another way, you could probably just squeeze out a snow scene at 1:30 in the afternoon with a Noctilux.

Denis K

 

[Domin]

That would be 125th of a second at f/0.5 on a sunny day; although DOF might be problem.

Looking at it another way, you could probably just squeeze out a snow scene at 1:30 in the afternoon with a Noctilux.

Denis K

If I had one...

I've shoot some very slow films and found that with my slr and 1.4 lens EI 1.5 is about what I can hold on very sunny day here.

 

[michaelbsc]

The x-ray duplicating film I have been describing ... At some point when I became interested in platinum/palladium printing I tried it to enlarge 2 1/4 and 4x5 negatives for contact printing. Much to my pleasure it worked perfect and produced all the tonal ranges.

Can you give us the film stock number, please? My wife is very interested in doing some prints, and I don't really want to try printing transparencies on an inkjet.

 

[jeffreyg]

duplicating film

Michael Batchelor,
You were interested in the x-ray duplicating film. I couldn't link to the address you listed but the film is: Kodak X-Omat2 Dental Duplicating Film #175 3185.
The chemistry is Kodak GBX. You must use a red safelight, not amber. The film comes in several sizes 5x12, 6x12 and 8x10. The 8x10 is $111./50 sheets. There are also duplicating films from Agfa which come in boxes of 100 sheets. The Agfa films also work with the Kodak chemistry.
Jeff

 

[michaelbsc]

Michael Batchelor,
You were interested in the x-ray duplicating film. I couldn't link to the address you listed but the film is: Kodak X-Omat2 Dental Duplicating Film #175 3185.
The chemistry is Kodak GBX. You must use a red safelight, not amber. The film comes in several sizes 5x12, 6x12 and 8x10. The 8x10 is $111./50 sheets. There are also duplicating films from Agfa which come in boxes of 100 sheets. The Agfa films also work with the Kodak chemistry.
Jeff

Jeff,

Thanks for the part number.

Sorry, the website is down for a while. Moving and such.

Is this double sided emulsion like the regular x-ray film, or single?

Michael

 

[jeffreyg]

It is single sided.
Jeff

 

[jnovek]

The duplicating film arrived.

Really bizarre stuff.

First of all, it's red. Like, it has a red anti-halation dye. Second, it's unperf. If I use a sacrificial roll of Kodak MAX to donate a couple inches of perf to the start of roll, the old Pentax Spotmatic seems to take it up just fine, though.

It's really slow and very low contrast. I'm trying to develop it in Dektol 1+3 right now, so far I haven't been able to nail down the speed, though. Definitely slower than ISO 1. I'll spin through a couple test rolls today.

Jason

 

[jnovek]

In the Spotmatic.