aerial film used for regular picture taking

[spoolman]

Does anyone know if there is any differences in using B&W aerial film versus regular film for picture taking.I' considering purchasing a roll of aerial film,cutting it down and re-spooling it for use in my Kodak autographic 3A.

Thanks

Doug

 

[Konical]

Good Evening, Doug,

I have no experience with aerial film, but I know that there are some threads here on APUG which have discussed the topic. A Forum Search should yield some useful information.

Konical

 

[Photo Engineer]

Some of them are higher in contrast to compensate for haze when looking down from high altitude. Some have more UV absorber in them to compensate for UV at high altitudes and some have enhanced UV sensitivity. It depends. I have lost track of all of the differences.

Some are identical to the roll film versions. The required differences were compensated for either with filters or by changes to the process.

None should be used as sheet film, as they are on thin support and can buckle in film holders.

PE

 

[removed account4]

hi doug

there is a guy called mr foto1
who sells spools of aerial film

http://mrfoto1.com/bargains/
there is information regarding the
pan and plus x film he sells.
it has a thinner base than cut sheet or roll film
and amd as PE said it is formulated a bit differently
than standard films.

i bought some from this fellow a few years ago, and enjoy using it.

john

 

[BradS]

We should hear from Mr. Galli on this subject too. It seems like he cuts and shoots this stuff fairly regularly.

 

[frotog]

A few years back I got a 9 1/2 x approx. 50' tail end of kodak double-x aerographic (cat. 2405-8081-003). It was the very end of the last run of double x w/out anti-halation. The nice lady at kodak broke rank and sent it to me gratis (usually the big yellow destroys old stock) I believe it's the thicker of the two estar bases (4 mil?). One of every four or five sheets would curl right out of the holder as soon as I pulled the darkslide. I found it necessary to use a sinar adhesive holder to get good repeatable results. The film is amazing, super sharp, wonderful straight curve, and no anti-halation backing (which does cool things when you use a strobe). The thin, thin base means low dispersion = great resolution. But be careful...more common than the 4 mil is a 2.5 mil which I'd imagine would be a real headache if you didn't have adhesive holders. Difficult to deal with but cheap (often free) and good.

 

[spoolman]

Konical:thanks for the info.Thanks everyone for your input.I noticed on the Trec-Hall website that they either stock or can order both Panatomic-x and T-max 100 in 9 1/2 " x 100 foot rolls.I've fabricated a cutting table using 3/16" x film width and length aluminum strips which have been chemically blackened and have a non-scratch surface so I can cut any width from 35mm up to 3 1/2 inches.
I'll be getting a price quote tomorrow for both rolls and we'll see what happens.

Doug

 

[Terence]

Most of the aerial films I've used (various aerographics from Kodak) have a slightly higher red sensitivity. I think PE meant higher red/IR sensitivity to cut through the increased UV at altitude and over long distances. The contrast builds with just a yellow filter about what most B&W films would do with an orange.

And if you can find Aerographic 2424, it's basically the old Kodak HIE High Speed Infrared on a different base.

I haven't had too much problem with the film curl. You can minimize it a bit by pressing it under a weight for a few days after cutting it. It doesn't get rid of the curl, but it cuts down on it a bit.

For more, see:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[Terence]

Also:
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

 

[AgX]

I've fabricated a cutting table using 3/16" x film width and length aluminum strips which have been chemically blackened and have a non-scratch surface so I can cut any width from 35mm up to 3 1/2 inches.

Can you tell more about that `non-scratch surface´?

 

[Photo Engineer]

Most of the aerial films I've used (various aerographics from Kodak) have a slightly higher red sensitivity. I think PE meant higher red/IR sensitivity to cut through the increased UV at altitude and over long distances. The contrast builds with just a yellow filter about what most B&W films would do with an orange.

[/url]

Terence;

You are correct. Of course, the use of a heavy UV filter, which is yellow, will increase the ratio of red to blue-green sensitivity. So, we are both saying the same thing but using different words.

As you go up in altitude, the ground looks bluer and bluer and therefore the ratio of red to the rest of the spectrum must increase to get good exposure.

PE

 

[spoolman]

Hi AgX: Sorry I've taken so long to respond.The no scratch surface is a velvety-like cloth which is glued to the underside of the aluminum strips.You can probably get it at any store which handles dressmaking supplies and material.The material I'll be using can be vacuumed as needed to remove any dust,grit or other foreign material which can scratch the film.

Doug

 

[imazursky]

I cut down some kodak Tri-x Aerographic Film #2403 9.5" and shot it in my crown graphic awhile back. It came out great.
The base is very thin so i cut it a bit wider so it fit snugly in the holder. I stopped down enough so that it would come out sharp.
I have a bunch of the duplication films so i hope to try it in my 12x20 by taping it down. The IR goggles i bought will definitely help.