A-2SH Film Development - Test Shots

[Wolfram Malukker]

Well, it was a pain in the butt to get on the reel until I figured out why it was falling out of the spirals, but once I figured that out I had a good handle on it. I shot this roll of A-2SH as a test, to evaluate how I wanted to shoot it and develop it. I still have a few frames left that I cut out of this roll, I decided to not push my luck and blind-cut the film and managed to get it RIGHT between two frames! Bet that never happens again.

These frames are shot in sequence, on the same roll of film, developed in the same tank, at the same time. Development was D76 undiluted for 13 minutes, constant agitation for 1 minute, then 10 seconds every minute after that. Running water stop bath for 1 minute, fix with Kodak Harding Non-Rapid fixer for 7 minutes, Legacy Hypo-Clear for 2 minutes, then a 10:30 second running water rinse, a dunk in photoflow, and hang up to dry.

This is 400ASA, the "rated" film speed.

Again, same shot, same camera, same lens, 320ASA:

And again, at 250ASA:

And the last shot at 200ASA:

The developer poured out bright lemon yellow, but other than that no big difficulties in development. I loaded the camera in complete darkness, which was a bit of a pain because of the 0.06mm film base.

What does everyone think? The metal wall behind the tables and benches is a light blue color, the brick is red, and the concrete blocks are a light grey. The tables are all treated lumber, and the benches are untreated pine. The tarp down against the wall is an old silver tarp.

I did not shoot a color chart, but I did shoot some indoor shots in the machine shop, and some shaded shots in the greenhouse. All other shots on the roll were taken at 400ASA, and I can post them as I get them scanned.

 

[koraks]

How did you scan/digitize these negatives? What's odd is the blooming around the shadow areas. This suggests a flare problem during digitization.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

Scanned with exactly the same settings as my last roll of Ilford FP4+. All the negatives were scanned with the same settings, as they were scanned on the same strip of film at the same time, on my HP S20 Photosmart.

I have shots of the same scene at 500 and 640 ASA but they were shot on a different day-it was overcast and I shot at F11 instead of F16. I'll scan those tomorrow, along with three more shots at 400ASA.

This is an aerial surveillance film, and the developer came out bright lemon yellow, so I assume an antihalation dye washed out. I plan to try it with a few IR filters on the next roll.

 

[lamerko]

Interesting how threads like this remind me that I have some stock I've never tried. I have the bottom box of Svema - 60 meters of the same film. I don't even know the purpose of this film - it's been in a refrigerator since I bought it and I've long forgotten about it.
There's not much information on the label, except that it's a perforated 35mm negative black-and-white CINEMA film. 60 meters. Which would suggest that it's panchromatic. My box in particular was produced in 1982. It seems that it's still being produced.
As for the "blurry" image, it's probably due to the lack of anti-halation coating, which was typical of some old Soviet films. Current production may be up to date.

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

I would expect cinema film to be on a standard thickness film base, as opposed to the super-thin base that this film is on. It's also a crystal-clear base, so it light pipes badly.

Astrum has a history of re-purposing old film emulsion names and designations for currently available films, which probably explains why there is some discrepancy in the results I've found in online photo examples.

I have a few frames left on the spool, maybe 6 frames, that I will develop in L-110 in the next few days. I have been holding out for some of the Adox Syrup from Freestyle, I pre-ordered it but it has not arrived yet.

 

[koraks]

it light pipes badly.

That must be the reason why there's this odd 'shadow blooming' going on in your scans.

 

[lamerko]

I would expect cinema film to be on a standard thickness film base, as opposed to the super-thin base that this film is on. It's also a crystal-clear base, so it light pipes badly.

Astrum has a history of re-purposing old film emulsion names and designations for currently available films, which probably explains why there is some discrepancy in the results I've found in online photo examples.

I have a few frames left on the spool, maybe 6 frames, that I will develop in L-110 in the next few days. I have been holding out for some of the Adox Syrup from Freestyle, I pre-ordered it but it has not arrived yet.

This is strange. The label on my box says "triacetate base". Also, the box is big enough and heavy enough for 60 meters.
As far as I understand, there was also a "fake" a-2sh - maybe some rebranded Fortepan that is being discussed on this forum.

I will open my box tonight and roll a few rolls so we can see

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

That must be the reason why there's this odd 'shadow blooming' going on in your scans.

I'll take photos of the negatives-they also show that glowy look.

 

[lamerko]

From the photos above it is clear that the "glow" increases with overexposure - at EI400 it is the lowest, and at EI200 - the highest.
I am defrosting the box now, maybe in an hour I will upload a photo of the negative itself and its base.

 

[lamerko]

Okay...
I always knew it was fun to work with Soviet photo materials - it seems that someone there deliberately wanted to make life interesting in those times.
Regarding my Svema A-2Sh box - it is a standard 60 meter box, factory sealed and glued. Manufactured in 1982 or 43 years ago. When I opened it, the adhesive on the cloth tape (I don't know what it's called) had hardened and fell right off. Inside, the film was packed in a paper (I assume black) envelope.
At first, I cut off about a meter of a piece that I wouldn't use - it would probably have deteriorated due to contact with the paper.
After the second rolled cartridge, I felt something very strange in the dark - I had TWO ends of the film! At first I thought I had cut something by mistake, but no... IT ACTUALLY TURNED OUT TO BE TWO films, rolled together! In the dark, this is quite unpleasant. The surprise didn't end there - now in the light, I saw that it was two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FILMS! And what's more annoying - one of the two is wound BACKWARDS. Now I have to rewind the cartridges.
Film 1: thin, yellow emulsion and whitish base. Transparent - it seems to have an extremely thin emulsion. Winded backwards, with the emulsion outside. The base is clear, but with a slight brown tint.
Film 2: looks like a classic cinema film. Except for the perforation, but often in the Soviet industry, cinema films had rectangular perforations. Normally thick, opaque, uncoated and with a gray, clear base, similar to Kodak 5222.
Funny

 

[Wolfram Malukker]

The film I have is *most likely* re-named Tasma 25L, but it looks very much like the grey/purple film you show in your photos, except extremely thin. I can say that the yellow film is probably *not* A-2SH, but could be a print film instead.

 

[lamerko]

I wonder if this is some kind of specialized package designed to automate some process in cinema?

 

[koraks]

I wonder if this is some kind of specialized package designed to automate some process in cinema?

That's the first option that comes to mind, yes. Maybe @Kino has an idea about this? Or perhaps @dokko?

 

[dokko]

That's very interesting. Unfortunately I've never seen or heard of something like this.

My first guess would be that it was used for something similar to contact printing (emulsion to emulsion, one side having a transparent base), but usually that is obviously done with one processed film in contact with an unexposed film.

So why one would expose two emulsions at the same time back to back I don't know (maybe for something like masking?)

 

[koraks]

Yes, masking comes to mind, or perhaps a legal/procedural reason to have a "carbon copy" of a recording. But given the impact on image quality, I'd be inclined towards the direction of masking etc.

 

[Daybreak135]

Scans look good! I recently purchased some A-2sh from Astrum so it will be fun to experiment with it!

 

[Sergey Ko]

I shot this film in 80-th in USSR. Rather big grain, but possible push up to 800-1000 ASA. Curious to see it today.
Normally I used D-76 1:1. Also good results with Glicin based developers or diluted Rodinal

 

[retina_restoration]

Well, it was a pain in the butt to get on the reel until I figured out why it was falling out of the spirals, but once I figured that out I had a good handle on it. I shot this roll of A-2SH as a test, to evaluate how I wanted to shoot it and develop it.

What does everyone think?

I've used this before - once - and found the tonality of it dreadful: it's all soot and chalk. Many of the "reprography" films have this unnatural look.