Adventures with Arista Ortho Litho

[grainyvision]

I have a thread (or few) discussing my attempts to use Arista Ortho Litho for normal photography. I want to pretty much get that all into exactly one thread that directly discusses this insane film. Last thread was here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pre-flash-post-flash-and-chemical-fogging-question.165843/

What is Arista Ortho Litho?

It's an insanely cheap red-blind (safelight compatible) lithographic film available in large to very large format. With naive processing, it is extremely high contrast, producing only black and white with no middle greys. There has been a lot of discussion on this forum and elsewhere for how to properly shoot and process this film to get pictorial results, and typically the tradeoff "triangle" is: Speed, Lowered Contrast, Density. ie, you can have speed and low contrast, but you'll get almost unprintably thin negatives. You can have normal contrast and good density, but will be using speeds of 0.3 ISO, etc.

I cut this film from huge 24" rolls into 120 sized strips as some sick exercise of a "fun" hobby, so everything I discuss here is typically related to processing in a tank like normal 120 film, and shooting in a camera rather than under an enlarger. This should be useful to people developing it in trays, and using enlargers too, but experiences might be a bit different. Anyway, so lets get into it. This is basically what I’ve experimented with and learned so far after ~50 120 rolls of Ortho Litho:

DEVELOPERS

Pyro PMK

Dilution 1+1+100 (A + B + water). Develop around 6m30s minutes, agitation every 30s. Non-acidic stop bath and fixer (general recommendation for pyro)
Speed: 0.8 ISO
Latitude: +8 stops to -1 stop

This was the first developer I used that held some promise of taming this film. The results are very low speed, but with great tonality and decent enough density. It is almost impossible to ruin a picture by over-exposure with this, making it especially fun for creative stuff like long exposures in daylight without an ND filter. Basically with more exposure contrast decreases. Eventually it turns blobby but it requires something like f/3.6, 30s in direct sun to really ruin it, and even then you can clearly see what’s in the image. Normally the negatives come out with an orange density. However, the actual gradient is related to exposure and goes (in order of more density) Orange, Olive, Blue/cool black. Film will have some visible grain, though it is a very smooth and attractive grain. Some base fogging is normal with this developer.

Over exposure latitude and better overall tonality can be obtained by reducing agitation, but this runs the risk of uneven development. Edge effects can be quite noticeable and sometimes unpleasant. Less agitation increases the edge effect and reduces contrast. Do NOT use stand development, it will result in extreme base fog and extreme edge effects (talking clear edges next to highlights you can measure between your fingers)


Ilford DD-X

Dilution 1+19, Develop 6m total, agitation every 1m.
Speed: 1.5 ISO
Latitude: +3 stops to -2 stops

This gives a true faster speed than PMK, but also overall increased contrast. In addition to this, DD-X has “split” contrast, where shadows will be fairly high contrast, yet highlights will rapidly have lower contrast.The negative produced will be full-range, with dark highlight detail and subtle shadow detail. This can make it difficult to print full shadow detail while retaining highlights. The actual image once scanned can be quite impressive, with practically invisible grain. Produces an orange tinted density with no base fogging. Relatively normal exposure latitude is present with this combo, though under exposed shadows will quickly turn from a visible grey to completely clear black.


D-23LC (custom developer)

Recipe:
1.5g metol
12g sodium sulfite
1L water
(optional: 1-2g of bromide can be added to decrease highlight density, though overall speed will be affected)
Can be mixed at room temperature; should keep for several days at least.

No dilution; develop using stand method. 35m total time, 30s-60s of initial agitation
Speed: 1.5-3 ISO
Latitude: +4 stops to -2 stops

This was a fairly successful adaption of the extremely simple D-23 developer formula. This produces an extremely full-range negative, even more so than DD-X. This also has better shadow detail than DD-X, bringing out subtle details through stand development into a printable image. However, the very dense highlights make it very difficult to print with both highlight detail and shadow detail. The overall density is comparable to that of E-6 slide film, and this developer and film would probably make ideal slides because of that property.

Negative will have slightly olive tinted density, and slightly better at both under and over exposure latitude than DD-X. Also has no base fog, and practically invisible grain. With this developer, 3 ISO is truly safe without risk of looking under exposed, though 1.5 ISO will give better shadow detail.


Dektol, Ilford Multigrade, etc paper devleopers [not recommended]

I tried a few different paper developers at various dilutions and each one resulted in extreme contrast and a very “coarse” appearance. Under magnification it was clear that what appeared to be “grey’ was just black dots with clear in between, and not a true grey appearance. I’m just going to say I don’t recommend this in a camera. I’ve heard some people have good experiences with this under enlargers though, and it also might work for pinhole cameras and other low contrast pictorial situations such as inter-positives.


HC-110 [not recommended]

Test diluted between 1+50 and 1+200 (syrup concentrate + water). Start time was around 6 minutes with agitation per minute. Speed is 0.8 ISO or slower. Results were very slow shadow speed, extremely thin density, and olive tinted negatives.


POTA (hand-mixed) [not recommended]

Recipe: phenidone 1.5g, sulfite 30g, 1L water – source: Darkroom Cookbook v3
Must be used immediately after mixing/cooling
No dilution, Develop 7-9 minutes. Agitation every 1m
Speed: 1.5-3 ISO (depending)


This is known to be a developer capable of “12 stops of exposure differentiation” and was designed for recording nuclear explosions on Kodak Tech Pan film. However, despite the similarities between Ortho Litho and Tech Pan, the developer doesn’t work here. It produces high to very high contrast images with extremely poor exposure latitude. It is near impossible to capture both highlight and shadow detail on the same exposure. Further, highlights do not just become dense, they become 100% black with no recoverable detail. Grain produced was extremely fine/invisible, and the density was of neutral tint.


Experiments

The real appeal of ortho litho is that it is fun to experiment with, even if frustrating at times. I’ve done a ton of stuff seeing what this film could handle and trying to increase it’s speed or lower it’s contrast and such. Most of these are just that, experiments. Don’t develop your wedding photos using this method


Sodium Dithionite / chemical flashing

Sodium dithionite is an unstable and.. tricky, chemical to use in a film development process. It will chemically expose film and in a basic environment will act as a fogging developer. It can be difficult to get ahold of, but is available in the US as the cleaning compound Iron Out. See this thread for my attempts at using it: https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/pre-flash-post-flash-and-chemical-fogging-question.165843/

Basically the TL;DR; of my experiments there is that it has the potential for making Ortho Litho am amazing, normal contrast 20 ISO film, but it is almost impossible to properly control for run to run consistency. Even the pure version quickly decays upon exposure to moisture and air, and it is impossible to preserve in solution for more than 24 hours without losing some amount of strength.


TEA + Bromide pre-bath

Also in the thread about sodium dithionite I discover that TEA can be used for “latensification”, ie, to intensify the latent image of already shot film. This eliminates or at least reduces the need for pre-flashing and sodium dithionite, so I started to pursue this. TEA by itself is effective at this though it will increase base fog levels. However I accidentally discovered something more useful than just TEA. I’m unsure of the chemistry behind it, but by using both TEA and (a lot of) bromide in a pre-bath, the latent image will be intensified, AND the emulsion will react differently to developer despite extensive rinsing etc to ensure there is no bromide carry-over. The basic result of this is lower contrast, significantly improved shadow detail and speed, and reduced highlight density.

This bromide addition seems to have no effect on speed but will effectively reduce overall contrast of any developer used. In addition, with some developers (DD-X 1+19, D-23LC) it will produce an extremely warm tone negative. Because of the contrast lowering effect, it is possible to use high activity developers as well. DD-X 1+9 produces long-scale, but attractive images of fairly normal contrast. A danger with this process is that I can’t get it to work properly with tank development. It will result in the middle of the film being fogged and of (I think?) higher effective speed than the edges of the film. I’ve used it to some success in trays, but the film must be placed emulsion side UP or else the shape of the trays will leave fog marks. Still working on this process

As a reference for what seems close thus far:

TEA 20ml
Bromide 40g
Water 1L
Pre-bath for 5 minutes (make sure to rinse well before to remove AH layer, and then rinse well afterwards)

After prebath develop in DD-X 1+9 for 4 minutes with agitation at the 2m mark. Ideal speed with this is 6 ISO, but 12 ISO has all the detail (just a bit too thin to easily print or scan). DD-X 1+19 can be used with more development for good tintype-style positives at faster speeds also.


Tintype-style Positives

Some of these images can make really nice tintype style positives by putting black paint on either the emulsion or non-emulsion side (produces different looks, judge for yourself). With positives, you also effectively will gain around 1 stop in “perceived” speed and so can work great as a way to make use of under exposed negatives.

I’ve also used this film with very hot lith developer (very diluted like you would for lith printing) and used it to enlarge slides to make a negative, and then paint it black to make a positive. With this process, the same guidelines apply as they would to lith printing on paper (more exposure = less contrast, etc).The images produced by this process are especially unique. Lithing paper etc almost always goes green or orange. This film goes orange, similar to many papers. However, if you paint the orange negative black, it will surprisingly also invert the color, leaving you with a very cool bluish “positive”. These can look really cool, though unsure how you could actually display it on a wall or something. It really needs the proper angle of light for the best appearance.


Your own experiments

Ortho film is safe to handle and process under a safelight, so make use of that ability! When trying a new developer don’t just blindly guess, develop by inspection and remember that usually you need a bit more density than it looks like you need under safelights. Always rinse the anti-halation layer off as this can affect the activity of some chemicals. Use distilled water to eliminate variables, especially with dilute solutions.. etc.


I’ll continue posting to this thread and editing this top-level post as I do more experiments and figure out more fun stuff to do with this film. I estimate I still have around 200 rolls worth of 120 film in my closet, so the only real restriction with this is my free time. I’ll also post some pictures as examples of each developer and process later on too and link to those posts here

 

[grainyvision]

Did another set of test runs tonight. Finally found the source of the fog for the TEA+bromide prebath -- not enough agitation. All runs developed by inspection in DD-X 1+9 (3m-6m). Set of runs (all sized to 500ml):

1. TEA + bromide 10ml/10g, no agitation, 5m -- Thick and non-uniform fog across the entire test strip, with slightly less fog on the edges. Effective max speed though, 12 ISO, maybe faster with stronger development
2. TEA + bromide 10ml/10g, constant agitation, 5m -- No fog at all, improved shadow detail. Effective max speed 6-9 ISO
3. TEA 10ml, constant agitation, 5m -- No fog at all, slightly better shadow detail, highlight and midtone detail worse. Effective max speed 6 ISO
4. TEA 10ml, no agitation, 5m -- No fogging, no observable improvement from without prebath (ie, very steep drop off of shadow detail and very steep highlight detail). Effective max speed 3 ISO

Full roll test: TEA 10ml, bromide 10g, constant agitation 6m; DD-X 1+9 for 5m -- Despite being more aggressive for both development and time in the prebath compared to #2, the max speed looked worse, with some shadow detail missing at 12 and 6 ISO that was present in #2. Interesting to note, when pouring out the prebath it appeared rather foamy despite there being minimal air in the tank.

So bromide is a critical component of this bath, and whatever fog comes from it does effectively increase the speed of the film. TEA+bromide done in a way that produces no fog will increase shadow detail and the effective speed by around 1-2 stops from naive processing, but the strip that was heavily fogged had significantly more shadow detail at 12 ISO. The fog does not occur without bromide, nor does it occur with significant agitation.

I'm honestly pretty stumped by this. My only guess is that TEA+bromide reacts with the emulsion in some way which produces a very short lived fogging agent. Agitation causes the agent to be washed away from the emulsion into the overall bath and/or to decay. I can't really figure out another explanation that would match these results. Notably, that bromide, a restrainer, is required in order for the fog to happen. It's very unintuitive.

Anyone out there with more chemistry knowledge than me have an idea for how this would happen?

 

[Alan Johnson]

From "The Film Developing Cookbook" by Anchell and Troop, the low contrast developer TD-LC 103 might be worth a try, it works with Adox CMS 20:
https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/adox-cms20-developer.166900/page-3

 

[grainyvision]

Most low contrast developers I've experimented with on this film will incur a speed decrease, or does not sufficiently reduce contrast. Trying to get both speed and low contrast has been the real challenge. PMK developer is my choice right now if I don't need speed.

I've done some research, trying to reverse engineer what would cause fogging with a TEA+bromide solution but only when not agitated. I'm basically going out on a pretty long limb here, but this is my hypothesis. The lith film is designed and produced for absolute lowest cost. Thus, an active and "fast" gelatin is used in manufacturing. A gelatin of this type would not need the ripening/chemical sensitization stage... Or maybe a "slow" gelatin is used and that combined with lack of ripening is responsible for its' very slow speed. Either way, the film is coated with an effectively unripened/under-ripened emulsion. When putting it into the TEA+bromide bath, it effectively becomes a sensitizer, unlocking small amounts of inert sulfur in the emulsion. When the sulfur (or sulfite? idk) "touches" the silver in the emulsion it converts to silver sulfide, a (disputed, but probable) component of a sensitization speck, thus making previous undevelopable grains, developable, and also forming fog where there is too much fo this effect.

Reasonings:

1. With agitation, the sulfur compound created in the emulsion by the bath is washed away, and is too dilute to have as much effect
2. Without bromide in the bath, the silver sulfide would not form and instead it would remain in some other inert form
3. I can't find too much about how TEA actually works as a sensitizer and hypersensitizer. It may only be required as a way to adjust pH to allow this reaction to happen more quickly. I suspect it does something more important though
4. According to a source, silver sulfide formed within the gelatin layer produces a yellow fog. I've seen this with some previous experiments using this TEA+bromide bath and TEA+bromide+sodium dithionite bath, especially when using stand development
5. TEA/bromide content seemed to not matter much after a certain saturation point. It didn't speed up the process nor did it have any real effect on the final result

At least one major source that seems to cover this in a way I can understand: http://www.thelightfarm.com/BookImages/Duffin.pdf (page 76 or so, covers how sensitization works, though unknown how current that info is)

Next actions:

* Try doing the TEA+bromide prebath for a significantly longer time, maybe 15 minutes, or at a hot temperature. Constant agitation is a real pain here though (must resist urge to buy a Jobo)
* Go even more experimental and try alternative sensitizing-analogue baths, such as a gold sensitizer, which might actually increase speed further than is possible here
* Try adding some sodium sulfite to the prebath to give an additional boost to the amount of potential sulfur in the bath, as well as to effectively emulate the "reduction" form of sensitization.. either that, or sodium thiosulfate

I have a weak suspicion that there is considerably more speed to unlock in this film if the film truly is unripened or at least under-ripened. I can't actually find any info about if sensitization to an emulsion can be done after exposure (such as maybe in wet plates?) but my very rough and basic understanding of the chemistry behind it says probably. My idea behind it: In theory the raw sensitivity (discounting dyes) is determined by grain shape and size only. That raw sensitivity is basically the max speed of the emulsion when pulling every trick in the book (hyper sensitize, flashing, push developers, etc).. Sensitizing just makes it so that most of that raw sensitivity can be developed. A grain without a suitable sensitivity speck is still light sensitive, and will develop with enough exposure.. So in theory with not enough exposure, the grain is still exposed but just can't be developed in it's current state. Somehow get a sensitivity speck to form and it'll develop, while other unexposed grains that also had a sensitivity speck formed won't.

 

[Nodda Duma]

Your assumptions about fast and slow gelatin are off the mark...Duffin and in fact all the old references are obsolete in that respect. Active gelatin is just not predictable enough for batch to batch consistency, so if they were using active gelatins it would cost more in $$ and schedule to characterize each batch for a coating run. Much more controllable to use inactive gelatin and add sensitizer... sulfur and potassium iodide likely in this case considering the contrast along with the sensitizing dye.

In any case, they have to chemical ripen to increase speed and spectral sensitivity. If they didn’t, then your effective maximum speed would be about ISO 0.25 - 0.5 and you would have much lower contrast. Also, the stabilizers they add to ensure the emulsion doesn’t fog over a short period of time preclude chemical sensitization after coating...tho exposing to ammonia vapors just prior to loading in a holder and taking a photo may boost speed..

Bromide is a restrainer and anti-foggant so it would reduce your effective speed. TEA — not sure, it obviously has some secondary effect. Perhaps it is knocking the stabilizers off the grains and allowing the sensitizing specks to grow some and then fog up.

Tbh I would look at your safelights... take careful note of your working times under safelight and do a fog test to see if that’s an issue. Don’t assume they are not an issue...trust me on this one.



Good luck!

Jason

 

[grainyvision]

Hmm interesting about the gelatin. I figured that a real active gelatin would be less predictable. I can't actually find much about how sensitizers affect the contrast of an emulsion. Do you have any sources for that?

The film is very slow. The real max speed may be as slow as 0.8 ISO and everything I've been doing to get faster speeds might actually just be equivalent to pushing the film. Are you saying stabilizers are required to keep the emulsion from fogging as part of the film's shelf-life?

This is the thing I don't understand, bromide+TEA should be a nearly inert prebath, with maybe the TEA giving a speed boost due to latensification. But it only works on this emulsion with bromide added. Without bromide a TEA soaked strip will look the same as a normally developed control strip. With both TEA and bromide and agitation for 5 minutes, the result is around a 1-2 stop increase in speed. With TEA and bromide without agitation for 5 minutes, the result is a 3-4 stop increase in speed, but also uneven fogging... And this is all done **after** exposure. TEA iirc can function as a silver etchant on emulsions which could be effectively removing any stabilizer stuck to the grains, but then why is the bromide needed as well?

My safelights are fine, I've done fog tests in the past and basically my work surface is good for >30 minutes.. Though, if I'm increasing the film's sensitivity this may be a concern. When tray processing I keep the trays covered and I've also done some tests in developing tanks (ie, 100% darkness for the film). The way the fog only covers the inside of the strip of film when done in a developing tank, or will show fog "lines" when done in a tray (ie, the bottom troughs of the tray) convinces me pretty well that this is chemical fogging and not general light exposure fog.

 

[DREW WILEY]

By far the best results I've gotten were with a specific dilution of HC-110. The correct dilution is critical. I don't have my notes handy, but this was with 8x10 sheet film and around ASA 8, and I seem to recall the dilution was 1:15 from stock (stock is 1:3 from concentrate). Nice clean negs without streaks or fogging. But it's a tricky film to predict exposure-wise. Has its own look. There are multiple generations of this film, so that can be a factor too.

 

[grainyvision]

Any idea on the amount of time and/or stand development? I might revisit HC-110, but it's known to not be a great developer with normal films for shadow detail, so I don't have a lot of hope for it with this film. I'm using the current generation 3, but most resources online talk about generation 2. Generation 1 appears to have been pretty short lived

 

[Nodda Duma]

Hmm interesting about the gelatin. I figured that a real active gelatin would be less predictable. I can't actually find much about how sensitizers affect the contrast of an emulsion. Do you have any sources for that?

The film is very slow. The real max speed may be as slow as 0.8 ISO and everything I've been doing to get faster speeds might actually just be equivalent to pushing the film. Are you saying stabilizers are required to keep the emulsion from fogging as part of the film's shelf-life?

This is the thing I don't understand, bromide+TEA should be a nearly inert prebath, with maybe the TEA giving a speed boost due to latensification. But it only works on this emulsion with bromide added. Without bromide a TEA soaked strip will look the same as a normally developed control strip. With both TEA and bromide and agitation for 5 minutes, the result is around a 1-2 stop increase in speed. With TEA and bromide without agitation for 5 minutes, the result is a 3-4 stop increase in speed, but also uneven fogging... And this is all done **after** exposure. TEA iirc can function as a silver etchant on emulsions which could be effectively removing any stabilizer stuck to the grains, but then why is the bromide needed as well?

My safelights are fine, I've done fog tests in the past and basically my work surface is good for >30 minutes.. Though, if I'm increasing the film's sensitivity this may be a concern. When tray processing I keep the trays covered and I've also done some tests in developing tanks (ie, 100% darkness for the film). The way the fog only covers the inside of the strip of film when done in a developing tank, or will show fog "lines" when done in a tray (ie, the bottom troughs of the tray) convinces me pretty well that this is chemical fogging and not general light exposure fog.

First question: my own experience making emulsion for dry plate (J Lane Speed Plates are Orthochromatic ASA 25 plates with moderate contrast in HC-110 dil B). but you should dig into the emulsion-making subforum where Ron Mowrey ie Photo Engineer ie former kodak emulsion engineer provides the rules of thumb including the fact sensitizers increase both speed and contrast. You can also look in Carrol and Hubbard’s “Photographic Emulsion” available on thelightfarm.com and see their data plots. Makes perfect sense of course, since larger grains have greater surface area for silver sulfur specks to form.

Second: yes, without stabilizers the sulfur will continue to sensitize the emulsion until it fogs. Stabilizers (ie TIA, PMT) are added at the end of chemical sensitization to inhibit or reduce further sulfur sensitization.

Double check for fogging as a sanity check. Trust me on this one. Just ruined 100+ plates last week because I assumed they were ok after my own “tests in the past”. Test in the same conditions you are using the film..ie with your increased speed and all that.

I propose the film speed is much faster than 0.8, and to achieve the moderate contrast at that speed you are overexposing and under-developing. High contrast ortho litho will have a very high Dmax, so you don’t blow out the highlights even at that speed. Makes more sense that way. Don’t forget Occam’s Razor

 

[grainyvision]

I've talked to PE some in other threads. He seems a bit mortified about the crazy stuff I'm doing to this emulsion to get it to react the way I want heh. And lith films are known to be extremely fine grain, and I've observed myself that it is impossible to resolve the grain with an enlarger (maybe possible with a microscope). So it definitely makes sense that it is a slow emulsion.

And that's interesting and gives me something to think about. I've not seen stabilizers mentioned in the emulsion making research I've done, but most of what is out there is wet plate which of course needs to be coated and processed rather quickly, so maybe there is no need for stabilizers there.

I did some tests previously and it's hard to determine the proper speed in a normal developer. The contrast is so high that it'll either develop into black, or it won't. So it depends on what you're metering for what "speed" you're actually getting. In enlarger based tests though, there was a "speed" increase, as in, less exposure needed to avoid developing shadows with stuff like Dektol, hard to determine if that is a true speed increase though. And yes, the Dmax when processed in something like Dektol is extremely high, like can barely see the sun through a black sheet high. Hard to make use of that property for pictorial purposes though. In more dilute developers the Dmax rapidly decreases and highlights tend to be significantly lower contrast, if there is any observable detail at all.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I was working with generation 2 with HC110, and haven't tried the newest version of Arista. Not much incentive. I can get far more predictable analogous results from my stash of TechPan sheet film, with the added benefit of pan sensitivity. Working with Ortho Litho was a just for sake of a fun experiment. I did get an exceptionally nice print from it, but don't see how it could be classified as economical if it's a crap shoot to predict. I kept it on hand for highlight masking in the lab, which is a more predictable high contrast application.

 

[grainyvision]

I like the ortho look is my main reason for continuing to do this. There are other ortho films out there, but they are also extremely expensive relative to normal panchromatic films. For instance, a 120 roll of Rollei Ortho 25 is ~$15 last I checked, while the cost of this ortho litho (though with custom cutting and rolling) comes out to around $1 per 120 roll. In sheet film terms it's even cheaper, though it's not that great as a sheet film due to how thin and fragile it is

 

[grainyvision]

Did a test run today. This time doing:

* Pre-bath (500ml) of 15ml TEA + 10g bromide, 10m with constant aggressive agitation
* DD-X 1+9 5 minutes. 30s initial agitation, 2x agitation at 2.5m mark

Results are very promising. No visible fog, though after scanning it appears there was a small amount of uneven fogging. Achieved great detail at 12 ISO and reasonable detail at 25 ISO, while also keeping 3 ISO and 1.5 ISO looking great. High contrast scenes, such as sky with dark trees renders with both tree detail and cloud detail. The negatives came out fairly thin though, appearing under developed. Probably will use more agitation and a total time of 7m next time. This is what the negatives look like. A lot of orange, almost like a pyro negative:

2x 12 ISO shots:

A 1.5 ISO shot:

And finally, even the 25 ISO shot seemed somewhat reasonable aside from the scratches and fog that tend to become obvious:

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

I'm hoping to revisit this film again soon to try to add what I can. I have read with a good bit of interest of your experiences in using/slitting/developing this film and I've only done some preliminary tries with it. A friend of mine is finishing up a project to merge two 12" paper trimmers into a single 24" trimmer that will allow me to more easily create 127 and 120 "short rolls" that will be more easily used and developed than the 12" limit I have had up til now.

Most of my tries in this may be to go very slow in speed and restrain development to see what sort of tonal range I can muster - hope to have some results within a month or two.

 

[Silverinsunlight]

C. 1995 I bought and used the previous generation of 4x5 Arista Ortho film in Hubl Paste @ 1:70 for about six minutes with a water pre-soak, water stop, fixed in an alkaline developer and water rinsed 6x. I got fairly nice tones, shooting around an EI of 3. I need to order another batch of glycin and make more Hubl. It is a beautiful if slow developer.

 

[grainyvision]

I'm hoping to revisit this film again soon to try to add what I can. I have read with a good bit of interest of your experiences in using/slitting/developing this film and I've only done some preliminary tries with it. A friend of mine is finishing up a project to merge two 12" paper trimmers into a single 24" trimmer that will allow me to more easily create 127 and 120 "short rolls" that will be more easily used and developed than the 12" limit I have had up til now.

Most of my tries in this may be to go very slow in speed and restrain development to see what sort of tonal range I can muster - hope to have some results within a month or two.

I have a 36" paper/mat cutter that I use with some 3D printed "stops" that are simply taped to it so it can in theory work in complete darkness, though I use safelights. If you're doing cutting yourself I highly recommend getting stainless steel developing reels. With my Hewes reels I can be off on tolerances by up to 1.5mm and still have no problems. With plastic reels, even within tolerance on the small side is sometimes a problem. I keep a few different sets of equipment in the darkroom for checking tolerances, such as developing reels, scanning trays (lomo digitaliza), and enlarger negative holders. Note that the ideal width for 120 is 62mm +/-0.5mm, most commercial films measure around 62.1mm. Also hit up local labs to get recycled backing paper, you may have to call ahead by a week or so if they normally just throw it in mixed trash, but some recycle it and it's a lot easier to go through in that case. Inspect each backing paper used also. I also have a label setup on mine so I never confuse the film for something else. I use mailing sticker sheets cut into strips for the exposed sticky tape to keep the roll together (ie, stick part onto the roll, keep the rest of the label on the wax paper). This works for both keeping the film rolled before exposure, and a way to keep it sealed after exposure, thought he backing paper is usually ruined afterwards because it's more sticky than whatever the film manufacturers use

It's not too bad with lith film, especially if you're content with shorter runs. iirc a 24" strip would give you around 8 6x6 exposures. Make sure to do tests and such to see how many exposures you get if you're going less than 32". Also, when rolling the film into the paper, big tip. Put tape on the film and position it so that it's about 1/2" before where it should be stuck in the roll. Do NOT stick the tape down. Roll it up until the tape, try to pull the tape and paper tight, then roll the paper onto the tape. If you tape it down beforehand you'll have problems with buckling of the film and it won't roll right. Also, if you want to go full 32" strips, the best option is getting a roll of 24"x100ft from Freestyle and cutting that down. Big initial investment and can be a real pain to deal with though. I was once trying to sell this film in cut rolls but didn't get much interest, probably due to lack of instructions on how best to make this film work for lay people. PM me if you want though and I can send you either rolls or strips when I do my next cutting run (I usually cut 20-40 strips at a time and put them in a dark bag and then roll as needed for myself). Unsure what the size difference in 127 film is though, I only do 120

Edit: Also if you're wanting slow, then you're in luck, because that makes it easy. Depending on how slow you want, everything from 0.1 to 1.5 ISO is pretty easy. DD-X 1+19 would be my goto if you don't have any pyro developers and want super fine grain (pyro adds grain in this, surprisingly). With a properly dilute and soft working developer you'll get nearly infinite amounts of over exposure latitude. It can be really cool for making long exposures in daylight where you don't want to stop down the lens too much and don't want to use an ND filter stack

C. 1995 I bought and used the previous generation of 4x5 Arista Ortho film in Hubl Paste @ 1:70 for about six minutes with a water pre-soak, water stop, fixed in an alkaline developer and water rinsed 6x. I got fairly nice tones, shooting around an EI of 3. I need to order another batch of glycin and make more Hubl. It is a beautiful if slow developer.

I've looked at a few different low contrast developers with glycin but never ordered any due to its short shelf-life. What is your recipe for "hubl paste"? And what do you mean fixed in an alkaline developer? I assume you mean fixer, like TF-4? Would also be interested in seeing what the negatives looked like. Glycin looks like it has a lot of potential for this film being so soft working, but short shelf life has me a bit apprehensive about ordering any

 

[Silverinsunlight]

I have a 36" paper/mat cutter that I use with some 3D printed "stops" that are simply taped to it so it can in theory work in complete darkness, though I use safelights. If you're doing cutting yourself I highly recommend getting stainless steel developing reels. With my Hewes reels I can be off on tolerances by up to 1.5mm and still have no problems. With plastic reels, even within tolerance on the small side is sometimes a problem. I keep a few different sets of equipment in the darkroom for checking tolerances, such as developing reels, scanning trays (lomo digitaliza), and enlarger negative holders. Note that the ideal width for 120 is 62mm +/-0.5mm, most commercial films measure around 62.1mm. Also hit up local labs to get recycled backing paper, you may have to call ahead by a week or so if they normally just throw it in mixed trash, but some recycle it and it's a lot easier to go through in that case. Inspect each backing paper used also. I also have a label setup on mine so I never confuse the film for something else. I use mailing sticker sheets cut into strips for the exposed sticky tape to keep the roll together (ie, stick part onto the roll, keep the rest of the label on the wax paper). This works for both keeping the film rolled before exposure, and a way to keep it sealed after exposure, thought he backing paper is usually ruined afterwards because it's more sticky than whatever the film manufacturers use

It's not too bad with lith film, especially if you're content with shorter runs. iirc a 24" strip would give you around 8 6x6 exposures. Make sure to do tests and such to see how many exposures you get if you're going less than 32". Also, when rolling the film into the paper, big tip. Put tape on the film and position it so that it's about 1/2" before where it should be stuck in the roll. Do NOT stick the tape down. Roll it up until the tape, try to pull the tape and paper tight, then roll the paper onto the tape. If you tape it down beforehand you'll have problems with buckling of the film and it won't roll right. Also, if you want to go full 32" strips, the best option is getting a roll of 24"x100ft from Freestyle and cutting that down. Big initial investment and can be a real pain to deal with though. I was once trying to sell this film in cut rolls but didn't get much interest, probably due to lack of instructions on how best to make this film work for lay people. PM me if you want though and I can send you either rolls or strips when I do my next cutting run (I usually cut 20-40 strips at a time and put them in a dark bag and then roll as needed for myself). Unsure what the size difference in 127 film is though, I only do 120

Edit: Also if you're wanting slow, then you're in luck, because that makes it easy. Depending on how slow you want, everything from 0.1 to 1.5 ISO is pretty easy. DD-X 1+19 would be my goto if you don't have any pyro developers and want super fine grain (pyro adds grain in this, surprisingly). With a properly dilute and soft working developer you'll get nearly infinite amounts of over exposure latitude. It can be really cool for making long exposures in daylight where you don't want to stop down the lens too much and don't want to use an ND filter stack




I've looked at a few different low contrast developers with glycin but never ordered any due to its short shelf-life. What is your recipe for "hubl paste"? And what do you mean fixed in an alkaline developer? I assume you mean fixer, like TF-4? Would also be interested in seeing what the negatives looked like. Glycin looks like it has a lot of potential for this film being so soft working, but short shelf life has me a bit apprehensive about ordering any

Mea culpa. I meant "Alkaline fixer".

The Huble Paste recipe is in the Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop. If you mix Hubl Paste as soon as you order the Glycin, it is about as stable as Rodinal. My batch lasted well over a decade. Photographer's Formulary has fresh glycin all the time. Just watch in mixing it-it foams a lot as the carbonate is added. Use a very high oversized beaker or a stainless steel bowl or similar.Here's their recipe from the side bar of page 116 in Appendix I:

500 ml distilled water, 54 C/130F
Sod. Sulfite. 165 grams.
Glycin 135 grams.

Mix well, and add gradually:
Potassium carbonate (cryst) 625 grams.
Water to make: 1 litre.

Once I mix another batch, I intend to see if I can spike the Hubl Paste in working solution with about 1 gram/litre of Ascorbic acid, always mixed and used fresh one shot.That might kick up the activity, but still could work very well as a stand developer for large or medium format films of a normal speed. The glycin stops bromide drag, which is the biggest enemy of stand or semi-stand development .

 

[grainyvision]

I did two runs, both actual "production" runs. First, I tried some sheet film in trays since I got a fancy new 4x5 camera. TEA 15ml, bromide 10g, 500ml for 10m with constant agitation, and then developed for around 7 minutes in DD-X 1+9. Sheets processed in prebath back to back with flipping the two sheets (ie, bringing the emulsion of the tray side to the top side) every 2 minutes

Despite constant agitation in tray and aggressive flipping, I ended up with uneven fogging across both entire sheets. Results were really not good and unusable, though the image was of course visible. Needs more research to figure out a better way to do tray processing. It might just be something that can only be done one sheet at a time.

Also processed a "real" roll of 120. This time using the same chemicals in the prebath, but scaled up for 1L. I then put the reel in a 2 reel tank, filled to the top, and agitated constantly. This in theory should've solved any fogging that'd be caused by lack of agitation and bath movement. The results are usable and in some cases amazing, but the inner most shots (first 4 or 5 of a 16 exposure 645 setup) have some uneven middle fogging. I did 12 minutes in the prebath, and then DD-X 1+9 (also 1L) for 8 minutes with agitation every 2 minutes. The results came out very full range and medium to high contrast, depending on exposure (more exposure caused more contrast due to separation between highlights and shadows). So I think it's over developed, though unsure why it looks so different from test runs done at 7 minutes. It's possible that the developer begins to get exhausted when using only 500ml and that reduces the contrast and amount of development.

Regardless, here are some cool results that came of it. Most are shot targeting 12 or 6 ISO, but I wasn't too strict about metering

 

[grainyvision]

Mea culpa. I meant "Alkaline fixer".

The Huble Paste recipe is in the Film Developing Cookbook by Anchell and Troop. If you mix Hubl Paste as soon as you order the Glycin, it is about as stable as Rodinal. My batch lasted well over a decade. Photographer's Formulary has fresh glycin all the time. Just watch in mixing it-it foams a lot as the carbonate is added. Use a very high oversized beaker or a stainless steel bowl or similar.Here's their recipe from the side bar of page 116 in Appendix I:

500 ml distilled water, 54 C/130F
Sod. Sulfite. 165 grams.
Glycin 135 grams.

Mix well, and add gradually:
Potassium carbonate (cryst) 625 grams.
Water to make: 1 litre.

Once I mix another batch, I intend to see if I can spike the Hubl Paste in working solution with about 1 gram/litre of Ascorbic acid, always mixed and used fresh one shot.That might kick up the activity, but still could work very well as a stand developer for large or medium format films of a normal speed. The glycin stops bromide drag, which is the biggest enemy of stand or semi-stand development .

Can the potassium carbonate be substituted with sodium carbonate? Since it can be used at such a dilute amount I'd probably try to scale down the recipe by half to start to see if I like it. Good to know that once it's all mixed together it has a long and stable shelf life. I need to order more TEA due to all this prebath usage (actually going to try reusing the prebath to see if there is some way to cut down on that usage) and will order some Glycin as well and try this out

And I actually haven't seen the usual signs of bromide drag with stand/semi-stand in this film. I think the emulsion releases less bromide than others do.

 

[grainyvision]

Did some experiments in the darkroom. Heard a tip from someone that Dektol 1+30, constant agitation, and 1-2m produces very nice, albeit somewhat high contrast results at 6 ISO. Decided to try this along with enlarger printing to hone in on the prebath process and I think I have a final version, though it's only really suitable for tray processing. I printed onto 4x5 sheet film from a 6x6 ektachrome slide. The slide was full range with some deep shadows and clear highlights. I did a test strip of film to determine proper exposure and basically aimed for what looked like 1 stop under exposed, where mid tones and highlights were there, but shadows had clipped to clear. This ended up being f/16 for 4s on my setup. All tests were done using this exposure level and comparing against a control processed film with no prebath

I also did a modification on the prebath to add iodide. I recently read a patent by Kodak of using a post-coating bath of bromide and iodide in order to increase film speed in green sensitive emulsions, and this was along with generally reading up everything I could find on sensitization in emulsion making. I believe the TEA portion of the prebath isn't actually the "active" ingredient, but rather penetrates the emulsion and allows the bromide/iodide to do it's thing, as if the emulsion were not yet coated. Constant agitation is still key to reduced fog.

After quite a bit of testing, this gave the most satisfactory results:

Prebath formula:
* Water 500ml
* TEA 15ml
* pot bromide 10g
* pot iodide 2ml of 1% solution
* Dilute further to 2500ml of solution (unsure if this can be kept as a concentrated stock yet)

Process:
* Rinse off antihalation layer
* Prebath with constant agitation for 1m30s
* Rinse well, 30s
* Develop in Dektol 1+20 for 1m45s with constant agitation -- Less time can be given for reduced fog though might also reduce shadow detail
* Water stop bath
* TF-4 fix for ~20s

I still need to try this in-camera to judge final results and speeds, but if using this film under an enlarger this is definitely the easiest way to get nice pictorial results, and the process is fairly fast. I did probably around 20 sheets in the prebath and noticed no decrease in activity. Unsure what the shelf-life is on that, but if it could be made into a super concentrated and long lasting stock, it would make processing a lot easier. Thus far I've been mixing the prebath from scratch each time I do these tests.

The results of the prebath compared to control (without prebath) are around 1/2-1 stop of improved shadow detail while not affecting the midtone and highlights of the image, aside from making the negative somewhat more warm toned. Highlights do not necessarily get "blown", but can go extremely low contrast. Shadow detail is less likely to clip to black, and midtone tonality is really impressive. The film does become slightly fogged, but the fog can only really be seen by comparing to a normally processed film. The fog resembles the normal media density of something like HP5+, instead of the ultra clear PET base that this film has. With more development or prebath time, this fog can overtake and reduce shadow detail, and will ultimately look uneven and ruin the image.

I also tried out a new film, just to see if these concepts would apply to other films. The film I tried was Royal Reagent ortho litho in 4x5. The film was clearly a different emulsion from Arista ortho litho and not just a rebranding. This film behaved similarly, with the prebath improving shadow speed by around 1 stop. The overall speed of the film seemed to be about 1/2 or 1/4 stop slower than Arista though. The base also seemed to have improved clarity which would be ideal for tintype style presentation where the film is edge lit. With Arista the base appears extremely clear, but with this new film it is even more clear and gives better "blacks" for tintype presentation. Without the prebath (or maybe with a more gentle version of it) the film also gives a really interesting 3D etching type effect when edge lit.

Anyway, this is the successful part. I also had some failures I haven't bothered to write about. I attempted to use a gold sensitizer recipe as a prebath (gold chloride + thiocyanate) which seemed to do nothing to ortho litho film, but did interestingly increase RC paper speed and produce cooler blacks if done carefully (too much resulted in grey blacks). Gold chloride + TEA results in the gold chloride quickly precipitating from the solution as a purple very fine powder, seemingly not light sensitive for the most part.

Also I would upload scans of these tests, but currently waiting on a new 3D printer to arrive before I can properly scan 4x5 film. I'll probably make some darkroom contact prints (also no 4x5 enlarger ) later on and flatbed scan them.

 

[grainyvision]

I've finally done it. Lets start with how awesome this looks:

This was taken at 12 ISO on a 120 camera and developed in standard reels. It also is definitely usable at 25 ISO, and starts to drop off (somewhat gracefully) at 50 ISO. I'd say you could effectively "push" the film in development to 25 or 50 and get great results as long as you disregard over exposure latitude.

So, after at least 150ft of custom cut 120 film, I have found the ultimate method by which to make Arista Ortho Litho a pleasant, extremely fine grain, normal/somewhat raised contrast, pictorial film.

The final process is shoot the film normally at 12 ISO, and then to use a prebath before development. The prebath I've dubbed PFS-4 (post-flash-solution version 4). Although I equate this with preflashing, the solution actually raises sensitivity quite a bit higher than is possible with normal preflashing. It has the same effect though, raises shadows, leaves highlights mostly untouched, and too much application will cause fog.

PFS-4 formula:

* 75ml heated water (~40C or so)
* 15ml TEA (triethanolamine)
* 10g potassium bromide
* 2ml 1% potassium iodide solution
* Top off to 100ml with water

Keeps for at least a few days (still testing keeping properties, I expect it to keep for at least 6 months if kept in an airtight dark bottle)

Complete process:

* Rinse well to prewet film and remove antihalation layer
* PSF-4 diluted 1+30 for 1m30s. Agitate VIGOROUSLY and constantly. Timing should be kept fairly precise (temperature seems to not make a lot of difference). Lack of agitation can result in uneven and streaky fog. If results have too much visible fog (a little bit of base tinting is normal) reduce dilution to 1+40 or 1+50 and keep timing the same
* Rinse well, for 1-2m.
* Dektol 1+20 for 2m. Agitate constantly. Timing can of course be changed. Extending to 3m would probably be ideal if shooting at 25 ISO, though be careful as this can interact with PSF-4 and cause more visible fogging
* Rinse/stop
* TF-4 fixer for 1m30s.
* Rinse/photo-flo


Here are some more brackets. At 6, 25, and 50 ISO respectively

As you can see, contrast unintuitively seems to go lower with under exposure and higher with over exposure. The film also becomes rather grainy with under exposure and any uneven fogging and other defects will begin to show up

This of course can apply to tray processing as well. Ensure constant agitation in the tray and that the emulsion is always UP. Do not process multiple sheets at a time. This accelerated process is actually ideal for doing darkroom enlargements though keep in mind prebath timing must be precise. The prebath has been seen to work with no activity difference for at least 10 4x5 sheets per 500ml in my testing.

This is a quick contact print test I did with 4 sheets at different ISOs, and with 6 ISO having no prebath applied as a control. It was printed at grade 0.5 and nothing was 100% black so that I could basically get all the detail possible onto paper. In practice, the prebath 12 ISO prints best at grade 2 or 3.

No one else seems as interested in this stupid film as I am, but hopefully this helps some poor soul searching for how to not get terrible pictorial results with Ortho Litho style film in a few years.

 

[alanrockwood]

...No one else seems as interested in this stupid film as I am, but hopefully this helps some poor soul searching for how to not get terrible pictorial results with Ortho Litho style film in a few years.

I'm interested.

 

[grainyvision]

I'm interested.

Try to replicate this then! I've found exactly 0 reference for how PFS-4 works after exposure, and several references stating it shouldn't work after exposure

 

[grainyvision]

Small correction, though I have yet to exhaust PFS-4, still, it will decrease in activity and actually become a bit smoother to control, though no idea how to take advantage of that without "pre-aging" by throwing junk film in, it's not the same as dilution. Anyway, I would add 5-10 seconds per sheet of 4x5 for 500ml of working solution after the first 2 sheets of film. I'd also recommend a slightly shorter prebath time for 4x5 sheet film. Begin with 1m10s. This should leave a small amount of base tint. With 120 I assume the larger amount of film ages the solution making 1m30s still a good time there. My aim is not to get no base fog or tinting at all, but rather to get a very small amount of base fog to ensure the solution is working though not heavy enough to affect scanning or printing. This also builds in some tolerance for if activity drops the base might go clear but shadow detail should still be just as improved.

On the other hand, the Dektol 1+20 solution will quickly become exhausted. You can try replenishing with 2ml at a time after 3 sheets in 500ml and/or extending time by 15s, but for critical results I would completely remix after every 2 sheets of film.

Also, still no hint at calibration failure after a few days of letting the stock solution sit in a mostly empty dark bottle and shaking it a couple times a day to simulate additional aging. Ultimately just takes time to test, but I'd say it at least should be guaranteed good for 1-2 weeks

 

[grainyvision]

Did some tray tests today, including processing some actual 4x5 pictures of things other than test charts and test scenes around the house!

Concluded that D-76 is in every way but processing speed, a better developer for this film, and with an almost normal dilution.

Process (test exposure at ISO 12):

* Rinse
* PFS-4 1+30, 3m, constant agitation
* Rinse
* D-76 1+3, 30s initial agitation, 4x per minute after, 5-7m total ("pushed" to ~20 ISO is 7, 12 ISO is 6, "pulled" is 5)
* Stop/rinse
* TF-4 fixer 30s

The results are very impressive. With D-76 no fog ever develops, but you get the significant shadow speed boost! I went as long as 4m in PFS-4 and 8m in D-76 and the results were clearly overdeveloped, but no fog at all. Increasing PFS-4 dilution to 1+20 resulted in the same effective speed, but with fog after just 4m in D-76. Results seem consistent with PFS-4 times of 2m to 4m, but I figure 3m is the safest time. Speed is pretty much the same as with Dektol 1+20 for 2m, but since no fog appears, it's possible to get the shadow density to easily printable amounts. Shadow detail is mostly present by 4m, but it looks best to me with my 12 ISO test at 6m. Highlights still run away a bit, but with limited agitation they mostly just go lower and lower contrast with more exposure. Tests were done with a somewhat measured test under an enlarger to get a reproducible 12 ISO-like exposure.

The real pictures also developed well with mostly normal contrast and very good shadow detail and tonation. There is one picture involving reflections where the highlights ran away pretty badly, but I think it can mostly be blamed on a high contrast scene and imperfect metering. I also used the "pushed" time of 7m, on it since shadow details weren't coming up like I wanted. End result is pretty striking though.

Grain is definitely pretty high, being quite obvious under 5x magnification, but at least in negative form, the grain looks sharp and attractive. I will do a tank test soon to ensure this also works with 120 cut film in a development tank. Hoping it works since I ran out of 120 cut film and only have a "test" roll of actual important pictures

Along with this, did 2 film tests in 35mm while I had it setup. Kodak Ortho Type 3 is also successful with this technique, though the speed increase is quite a bit more subtle. Speed is only increased by maybe 1/2 stop. Grain was fine in both tests, being completely invisible under 5x magnification.

I also tried some FP4+ in 35mm, I really need to reduce this test in a tank properly (working in the dark with curly film is hard), but at least preliminary result is that PFS-4 results in no speed increase and decreases highlight contrast.

Finally, also learned a bit about exhaustion of PFS-4. Speed increases in D-76 began to fall off after the 4th 4x5 sheet in 300ml of solution. There was definitely still a speed increase, but it was reduced by around 1/8-1/4 stop, with no amount of time compensation effective in bringing back the loss in speed. This speed decrease can be counteracted though by careful "replenishment" of the working solution with 1ml of PFS-4 stock per 3 sheets of film

Will upload some scans and prints soon with this new process, but I think this is the way to get a normal result from this film, rather than the vintage glass plate kind of look with weird uneven fogging