Another new film from Lomo - Babylon 13

[pentaxuser]

I mindlessly made my first roll 36 frames, and it seems OK but I didn't shoot it yet - it fits fine, however, didn't feel hard to crank towards the end or anything like that, and if I wiggle an inch or so of the leader in and out of the cassette, it doesn't bind or anything, seems perfectly normal. Also my EOS 3's auto-everything, transport-wise, had no issue with the short roll that I shot.

What is D96, and is it related to D76?

For others with auto-everything transport-wise it would be nice if you give a quick report on how the auto-wind back went. It gets a bit worrying when Orwo apparently warns of as little as 10-15 being the safe maximum to load. Presumably if this is ORWO's position then no-ne should expect to see this stuff sold in factory-made cassettes

Personally I have never seen any real advantage in auto-rewind but unfortunately I too am stuck with an auto everything transport-wise camera but not in my case an EOS 3

Thanks

pentaxuser

pentaxuser

 

[Steve@f8]

You're welcome PF. To me the most interesting thing about it is the glow that is created in back lit subjects, and from highlights. This lack of anti-halation makes it a stand out for uses where this is desirable.

Crop from one of the images above showing that glow/halation:

Love the glow, this is exactly the type of film I’ve been searching for given the demise of PolyPan F 50. Wouldn’t use it excessively, but now and again - might be good for weddings, you know the white dress in appropriate light, etc.
The lack of an anti-halation is inferred from the glow. Is this supported by the literature, anyone know?

 

[Steve@f8]

It actually does have a anti halation layer, but it's designed for a printer lamp bulb, not camera shooting, so it doesn't work as well.

"Product description: ORWO DN21 (Duplicating Negative) is a low-speed, black and white film,
specifically designed for the production of black & white duplicate negatives from master positives,
or internegatives from reversal negatives. DN21 has panchromatic sensitivity, high sharpness,
and produces well-balanced grey values. There is a new AHU-Layer (Anti Halation Under-Layer)
between the emulsion layer and the clear base which will be uncolored during the processing.

Compare to: Eastman Fine Grain Duplicating Panchromatic

Ah, just read this: Lomography’s Babylon 13 (being ORWO DN21 based on what I’ve read in this thread) does appear to have an anti-halation layer, just not as effective as other films. Presumably because it’s a ‘copy’ film.

 

[Steve@f8]

This is the spec sheet for ORWO DN21: http://www.filmotec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/V-I-TI-DN21-e.pdf It says the film guarantees an outstanding anti-halation.
If Babylon 13 is indeed the same film, and looking Huss’s glow-full images earlier, I think I’m confused.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Please report back with your xtol development time and results...

Oh, absolutely. I also plan to do a few reciprocity tests in the near future, since film this slow pretty well guarantees someone will need exposures long enough for it to matter. I need to look up how to derive the Bond-Gainer factor (I used to multiply by a larger number than 2 for each stop, say 2.8 for FP4 Plus above 1 second; this works the same). I've also noted that this appears to be an ortho-panchromatic film -- it has reduced red sensitivity compared to a Type A panchro like Tri-X. Not enough reduced to develop under red safelight, but enough it loses a stop or more of speed during the golden hour, almost certainly a similar reduction under incandescent light. That to say, my negatives from Friday's test roll are pretty danged thin...

 

[Donald Qualls]

This is the spec sheet for ORWO DN21: http://www.filmotec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/V-I-TI-DN21-e.pdf It says the film guarantees an outstanding anti-halation.
If Babylon 13 is indeed the same film, and looking Huss’s glow-full images earlier, I think I’m confused.

I think it's been well shown that this is in fact the same film (at least the same emulsion) as Babylon 13. Didn't someone read the Filmotec/ORWO edge markings on a roll of the Babylon? And Lomography gets 36 in a cassette -- but this film is thicker and stiffer base than most 35mm (to the point my Watson style bulk loader gives a workout opening and closing the gate). My second roll was 20 plus leader, and so far, so good -- loading went easily and my Ricoh Singlex II seems to have no trouble advancing. This is a metal cassette, however; a plastic one may be slightly smaller inside (since the outside has to be the same dimensions), and if so would jam with fewer frames than a metal one.

 

[Huss]

The markings on Babylon 13 say Orwo DN21. As i mentioned before.

There is no doubt as to what it is!

 

[alter ego 6x9]

Well, I developed a short strip (12 frames) in xtol - 11 min at 20C. A few observations: first, when wet the film had some kind of "milkiness" described earlier. When it dried it looked ok, except that maybe it required a bit longer development. On the other hand - all frames were shot at box speed in "golden hour", so maybe it does loose a bit of speed in those conditions. Second - I could not scan it using my Coolscan ED V - the scanner just kept ejecting the film. Probably there is something about film thickness or maybe flatness (it dried quite flat, but my Coolscan is quite sensitive and I have issues with many brands). I will keep those strips flattened in the book under the weight and will see (it helps with other films). In the meantime I scanned it with Epson V700. And the third thing - I could not see any edge markings But maybe the strip was too short, just 12 frames, or maybe Lomography is using older emulsion from Orwo and the new one is without markings?

 

[Donald Qualls]

The spec sheet for DN21 shows much less red sensitivity than most panchromatic films -- it certainly loses speed in redder light. From what I've seen so far, I'm inclined to dock it 1/3 to 2/3 stop after mid-afternoon, and a full stop to 1 2/3 during the golden hour.

My first strip (purchased direct from ORWOna, so presumably quite fresh), about 12 frames total, has two sets of full barcode and coating ID marks, along with the little tick marks every few (4?) frames. IIRC, those should appear every foot, or about 8 frames. The edge markings weren't visible from the base side, however, until the film was fully dried. I haven't scanned my first strip yet, but it's pretty thin (except for the frames where humidity fogged the lens too much to have any image; those have nice density ).

Second strip is still in my Singlex II (longer, so more variety, but takes longer to shoot with the limited compositions around home compounded by weather -- rained most of the day yesterday). Shooting indoors, OTOH, has guesswork because we don't yet know the reciprocity limits or Gainer factor for this film. I'll probably get a tripod, though, and do some motion-blur shots with the minute hand of my old wind-up clock, so I can finish the roll and get it into the Xtol.

 

[PFGS]

For others with auto-everything transport-wise it would be nice if you give a quick report on how the auto-wind back went. It gets a bit worrying when Orwo apparently warns of as little as 10-15 being the safe maximum to load. {snip}

Reporting back as requested - my EOS 3 had absolutely no problem running through a full 36 frame roll - initial load, shooting, and rewind were all fine, no sound like anything straining or binding. Film was loaded in a vintage Kodak Snap-Cap.

 

[pentaxuser]

Thanks PFGS for the report back. This should be useful for those who might consider a bulk roll of this film but would otherwise be put off by the 10-15 max frames per cassette

pentaxuser

 

[Huss]

This is the spec sheet for ORWO DN21: http://www.filmotec.de/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/V-I-TI-DN21-e.pdf It says the film guarantees an outstanding anti-halation.
If Babylon 13 is indeed the same film, and looking Huss’s glow-full images earlier, I think I’m confused.

My Lomo Babylon 13 is marked ORWO DN21 and has that wonderful glow. It seems that just because the spec sheet mentions one thing, reality may be another!

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

 

[Steve@f8]

My Lomo Babylon 13 is marked ORWO DN21 and has that wonderful glow. It seems that just because the spec sheet mentions one thing, reality may be another!

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

I’ve seen your images, Huss, they speak for themselves with lovely glow-full halation. When the manufacturers say ‘outstanding anti-halation‘ it has to be be said in context, but images tend to trump words. I think the context of ORWO DN21 is that the film was conceived and chemically arranged to be a ‘copy film’, and the ahl for copying may have different demands.

 

[MattKing]

Well, the anti-halation properties do appear to stand out.
Perhaps a translation error along the way?

 

[Kino]

Anti-halation requirements for a motion picture printer lamp brightness and full sunlight are quite different...

 

[PFGS]

Anti-halation requirements for a motion picture printer lamp brightness and full sunlight are quite different...

This is what I'm thinking - the anti-halation is effective in the film's intended use, but not how we are using it.

 

[pentaxuser]

Well, the anti-halation properties do appear to stand out.
Perhaps a translation error along the way?

It has to be a translation error, doesn't it? People buy this film for its glow which is its outstanding "halation" property surely?. Isn't an outstanding anti-halation property one where the glow is eliminated to a degree that makes it outstanding amongst those films that themselves do not exhibit "glow"

At 3 feet 5 inches tall I have outstanding anti-normal height. So buy me for my cute tininess but don't match me in a boxing ring against Antony Joshua or Tyson Fury

pentaxuser

 

[AgX]

My Lomo Babylon 13 is marked ORWO DN21 and has that wonderful glow. It seems that just because the spec sheet mentions one thing, reality may be another!

“The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

As repeatedly hinted at in this thread copy and print films are exposed differently than camera films. This has effect on the prerequisite of halo appearing.

 

[Huss]

As repeatedly hinted at in this thread copy and print films are exposed differently than camera films. This has effect on the prerequisite of halo appearing.

Yes, and makes this film quite lovely if you want back lit glow.

 

[Kino]

Since it is a copy film, the emulsion is formulated for full exposure and lots of agitation. We process it from .45 to .80 gamma; about a 4 stop range, so have fun pushing the boundaries. It can take a lot of abuse!

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, my first roll (processed in Df96 is a little disappointing, but at least I now think I know why.

The film still looks "milky" in the frames, less so in the rebates, in reflection -- but now I think there are two things going on. First, my Df96 may be getting tired. It's only had 7 full rolls and a shorty, but it's been almost double the recommended shelf life since I mixed it. Bigger issue, however, is that I think I fogged the outer layer or two of the film -- the first time I tried to load a cassette, something went wrong and the door of my Watson type loader popped up while the gate was open. I closed the door, closed the gate, and discarded a foot or so of film (at least one turn on the bulk roll), but this strip shows some fogging (especially on one edge), as well as being underexposed a bit, and the lens misting due to being colder than the humid air.

I finished off the second test today; there should be no lens mist, any fogging remaining from the loader door incident should now be confined to the extreme edge (rebate only), and most of the exposures were made with bluer light, so the film should have much nearer its full speed. I plan to process tomorrow in my replenished Xtol stock. We'll see what I get.

 

[PFGS]

Fired up my new little darkroom for the first time last night, and at the end of the session I did a quick 5x7 print of the "movie reel" image I'd scanned & posted earlier in the thread. Despite the overall weird look of the negative, it printed quite easily at grade 2 and looks pretty much just like the scan but with a bit more contrast. Granted that's a very modest print size, but with a 8x loop the grain is literally invisible - you can't see anything but the fine hammertone-like texture of the reel, and the texture of the background posterboard. Not bad, I think, for a very sloppily processed negative stand-developed in ancient Rodinal (which I'm guessing worked mostly because of the subject's modest brightness range).

 

[Donald Qualls]

Granted that's a very modest print size, but with a 8x loop the grain is literally invisible.

An 8x loupe on a 5x enlargement means the grain is still invisible at 40x total enlargement. That's not shabby.

I've got my second roll of DN21 in the tank waiting for its soup course, but it looks like it'll wait until I can load up the Ultra 400 I shot today (Xtol times seem to be the same, at least for a first hack). Once its dry, I'll see what it looks like at 4800 ppi. If I don't goof off tomorrow, I might even be able to get some paper into the Dektol on Monday or next weekend and make a real test. Meantime, I loaded up two more cassettes with 20+ frames each.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Well, dinner was late, because lunch was too big -- and now I have to stay up a little longer to let dinner digest. As a result, I was "forced" to go ahead and run the tank with the DN21 and the Ultra 400. As noted, the Xtol time for .EDU Ultra 400 is well within ORWO's recommended range for the DN21, and with real, not-exhausted rapid fixer I got a clip test that cleared in less than a minute, so no persistent milkiness -- looks like time to dispose of my old Df96 (and probably not mix the backup bag for a while, since I have Xtol on hand.

This time, shot in midday light or with flash, the negatives look pretty normal for exposure, too. I should be able to get them scanned tomorrow, after I get my enlarger setup done.

 

[Huss]

I just messed up a roll of Babylon by trying to develop it in DF96 that already had 16 rolls pass through it. With no issues. But #17 was it - the film was underdeveloped - not even the exposed leader (from when you load the camera) was sufficiently dark.
A bit disappointing as Cinestill claims 16+ rolls. And I have managed to get up to 18 before per batch but going forward I will pull the plug at 16. Not worth losing another $8 roll of film..
p.s. that batch of DF96 was started in the beginning of August - so just over a month old (and 16 rolls of film).

Cross posted to DF96 experience thread.