Another new film from Lomo - Babylon 13

[Michael Teresko]

I just went to orwona.com and bought 100 ft, because I think this looks like a great film for some of the stuff I like to do. Maybe not a fully rational move for a film I've never used, but I only have to shoot less than half of it to break even with the Lomography price, and I've shot enough Fuji Eterna ERS at ~ISO 3 to know that my part of NC provides plenty of light for the slow stuff. Thanks Huss for bringing this stuff to my attention, looking forward to seeing more.

A little off topic, but have you received your film? I ordered a roll of UN54 on 8/12 from OrwoNA and it still shows as awaiting fulfillment. When I ordered, it was shown as being in stock.

 

[PFGS]

A little off topic, but have you received your film? I ordered a roll of UN54 on 8/12 from OrwoNA and it still shows as awaiting fulfillment. When I ordered, it was shown as being in stock.

No update since the same "awaiting fulfillment" email. Possibly a coronavirus delay, like everywhere else?

 

[Donald Qualls]

Mine too -- ordered 8/16, "Awaiting Fulfillment." I'd have hoped it was at least in a box by now, but it's free shipping, and I don't need it fast.

 

[Michael Teresko]

Mine too -- ordered 8/16, "Awaiting Fulfillment." I'd have hoped it was at least in a box by now, but it's free shipping, and I don't need it fast.

My order just went to shipped. Don't know if it helped, but I sent them a message from the website yesterday inquiring about the ship date.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Yep, mine says "shipped" now, too. They must just ship in batches ever couple weeks -- might be a COVID-19 restriction, or just saves money.

 

[Huss]

A other more recent idea for rebranding is upgrading, giving the buyer the impression to buy something niche, exotic, or even higher quality.


Something else then is rebranding at products that not exist originally in that form. For instance Maco converting Agfa films that do not exist as e.g. type 135 to this format and branding it under Rollei for which use they got a licence.

Toyota has been doing that with the Lexus line for decades now!

 

[MattKing]

Toyota has been doing that with the Lexus line for decades now!

Not to mention GM with Cadillac, Ford with Lincoln, Honda with Accura, etc., etc.

 

[Donald Qualls]

My roll of DN21 arrived today, with a hand written label on the can and a handwritten note attached to the printed packing slip -- saying it's hand spooled, seemingly by whoever runs ORWOna. Also gave an email address for processing information. I'll get it in the loader tonight and load up a cassette, then see if I can find a 35mm camera with a fairly fast lens that hasn't already got film in it...

 

[PFGS]

My roll of DN21 arrived today, with a hand written label on the can and a handwritten note attached to the printed packing slip -- saying it's hand spooled, seemingly by whoever runs ORWOna. Also gave an email address for processing information. I'll get it in the loader tonight and load up a cassette, then see if I can find a 35mm camera with a fairly fast lens that hasn't already got film in it...

Mine arrived as well - hand written label, note, and three stickers for my skateboard. The note, while awesome, is just shy of legiible: "The film is thick, it runs, just needs 35mm {mystery word possibly starting with M, N or W}" - did you get this? Is it saying, don't use in a motorized camera like my EOS 3?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I got something similar to that, without the 35mm part. It may be thicker base than cine film would usually be (won't know until I open it and at least load the bulk loader).

 

[AgX]

Is it saying, don't use in a motorized camera like my EOS 3?

This is about the actual or imaginative danger of spoiling a still camera when using PET-based film, as such cannot be torn by a camera, the fail-safe feature of torn perforations as with TAC-based films is lacking here.
Whether a motor-wind camera really could be spoiled depends whether a motor could deliver the needed torque in first place and then on other automated-stop features missing.

Basically such warning may apply on hand-winding cameras too.

But Maco for instance has been offering PET-based type 135 films for more than ten years (thus the internet days) and I do not know of one report of a spoiled camera.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I got the DN21 loaded into the bulk loader last night -- the base is thick enough to make it quite effortful to close the loader's gate; if you have a choice, you may want to put this film into a Lloyd style loader instead of the Watson type that are all I have. I suspect this is the case to make the film more durable, since it may be used for making many copies in the cine distribution industry (may even wind up as projection film). I loaded a short roll and ran it through my Minolta AL 1000 (45mm f/2 Rokkor). Late day, low sun, at ISO 12, I wound up shooting wide open and hand holding down to 1/8, but I'm more interested in exposure and apparent (lack of) grain in my process than in the images per se.

The film has a greenish emulsion, and a darker blue-green base side. It's also some effort to cut with scissors. This is some tough stuff, mechanically speaking.

I emailed for processing and technical info, we'll see what I get. I might possibly run this in Df96 tonight, if I have time, just to be able to see a result ASAP, but if I get data I can translate, I'll try it in Xtol-R stock. Another roll or two and I might try a high dilution, low agitation regimen to see if I can pick up a little speed -- and I'll certainly load this in one of my M42 bodies next, where I have a stop faster lens and SLR focusing.

 

[PFGS]

This is about the actual or imaginative danger of spoiling a still camera when using PET-based film, as such cannot be torn by a camera, the fail-safe feature of torn perforations as with TAC-based films is lacking here.
Whether a motor-wind camera really could be spoiled depends whether a motor could deliver the needed torque in first place and then on other automated-stop features missing.

Basically such warning may apply on hand-winding cameras too.

But Maco for instance has been offering PET-based type 135 films for more than ten years (thus the internet days) and I do not know of one report of a spoiled camera.

Thanks for this. A few years back, I went through about 300 feet of PET-based Ilford Surveillance 400P4 without any issues, so I'm not too worried if that's all the note is getting at. First roll is going in my old F1 as that's the keeper of my only f1.2 lens (and it's a chance to dust it off while not being likely to miss the broken 1/1000) but I'm sure it will find it's way to the EOS 3 eventually.

 

[alter ego 6x9]

My order of DN21 arrived from Filmotech a few days ago. I will do some test shooting this weekend. I could not find any development times for XTOL (which is my regular developer) so will need to experiment a bit to find out.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I've had good results in general with finding another film that has times for both my chosen developer and one the film manufacturer gives data for, and assume the ratio will be the same. At the least, that will give a good starting point (which is all manufacturer times are anyway). So, say, my "Europan 200" doesn't give an Xtol time, but it does give time for ID-11 -- well, I just look around and find a similar film that has times for both developers, and do a little arithmetic to get an Xtol time the same percentage longer or shorter than the ID-11 time as the one for, say, Fomapan 200.

 

[PFGS]

I just hung a 10-frame roll up to dry, shot this morning & developed in Rodinal. I have images, at least! It has a decidedly dark base that looks a lot like film that's under-fixed, that milky quality - enough that I sent it back for a second pass through fresh fixer, no change. I'm new to Cine film, maybe there is some kind of coating that requires an extra step or specifc devs?

 

[Donald Qualls]

DN21 is a duplicating negative film, so shouldn't have a silver antihalation layer (as is sometimes the case with B&W reversal films). Might be worth giving it a short bath in Farmer's Reducer to see if that will cut down the fog or whatever layer might be present. Rodinal isn't a particularly low-fog developer -- or at least Parodinal isn't, and it's said to work the same. When I first experimented with it, I had to add a good bit of potassium bromide chasing fog levels. Also, what temperature were you at? I've seen suggestions that the same temp-corrected time (i.e. same total development) will still produce more fog when warmer.

When I get home, I'll check my email to see if ORWOna has replied on processing recommendations. High fog levels would be unacceptable in cine prints that will be projected, so unless they're selling old film there should be a way around this.

 

[alter ego 6x9]

I've had good results in general with finding another film that has times for both my chosen developer and one the film manufacturer gives data for, and assume the ratio will be the same. At the least, that will give a good starting point (which is all manufacturer times are anyway). So, say, my "Europan 200" doesn't give an Xtol time, but it does give time for ID-11 -- well, I just look around and find a similar film that has times for both developers, and do a little arithmetic to get an Xtol time the same percentage longer or shorter than the ID-11 time as the one for, say, Fomapan 200.

yes, that’s the plan...

 

[PFGS]

DN21 is a duplicating negative film, so shouldn't have a silver antihalation layer (as is sometimes the case with B&W reversal films). Might be worth giving it a short bath in Farmer's Reducer to see if that will cut down the fog or whatever layer might be present. Rodinal isn't a particularly low-fog developer -- or at least Parodinal isn't, and it's said to work the same. When I first experimented with it, I had to add a good bit of potassium bromide chasing fog levels. Also, what temperature were you at? I've seen suggestions that the same temp-corrected time (i.e. same total development) will still produce more fog when warmer.

When I get home, I'll check my email to see if ORWOna has replied on processing recommendations. High fog levels would be unacceptable in cine prints that will be projected, so unless they're selling old film there should be a way around this.

I got to know fog well from my time with Caffenol, and this was definitely milkiness. But, it's already almost gone as the film has begun to dry, I think it's just a property of the emulsion when it's saturated. Sorry for the false alarm.

As for the Rodinal, it was an impulse as I have a bunch to use up but always found it too grainy for 35mm. NC August room temp, about 74 deg.

 

[PFGS]

A couple of quick scans, tripod shots of junk around my house.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Wow! Those are going to be better than mine. My lens kept fogging up (cool in the house, warm and very humid outside when I shot the tests), and did I mention I got down to 1/8 hand held as the daylight dimmed? Well, we'll see. Didn't get them developed tonight, so it'll be tomorrow night or Saturday. I did get the spec sheet and processing docs -- recommended is 5-7 minutes, 21C +- 1, in D-96 (also shows an unfamiliar ORWO developer, naturally). Massive Dev Chart suggests Eastman XX gets the same time in Xtol stock as in D-96, at 7 minutes (20C), so I'll probably give the DN21 6 minutes in my replenished Xtol stock for a first run. They do suggest 5-7 minutes in rapid fixer, which might mean the film needs double time in Df96 for anyone who wants to try it -- and ORWOna apparently recommends not loading even as many as 24 exposures in a standard 35mm cassette due to the base thickness -- 10-15 is suggested as a more comfortable quantity. Seems like it's coated on a 120 or heavier, maybe even 4x5 thickness base.

Another baseline for processing is to get the Lomography recommendation for Babylon 13 -- which might be the same emulsion, but is presumably coated on a thinner base, else they wouldn't be able to sell it in full length rolls. A quick Google gets Babylon 13 recommending:

10 minutes in D96
8:30 in HC-110 Dilution B
12 minutes in Ilfosol 3 1+9
9 minutes in R09 1:50
10:30 in Tetenal Ausgleichsentwickler "standard dilution" at 23C.

Google Translate says "ausgleichsentwickler" is "compensating developer". From Lomography's sample photos for each developer, my own preference would be for HC-110 (of the ones they show).

That D96 time is 50% longer than what ORWO recommends for DN21. This may not be exactly the same film (even discounting the difference in the base). Based on the images above, though, I think I'm going to enjoy it.

 

[PFGS]

Wow! Those are going to be better than mine... Based on the images above, though, I think I'm going to enjoy it.

The actual negatives are pretty thin - Rodinal has never been "speed enhancing" that I know of. I'll get serious with HC-110 on the next roll, probably starting with the Lomography times - that's my preference too, out of those samples, plus it's what I have. Do the data sheets give an ISO for this film?

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?

 

[Donald Qualls]

I'm not at home, so don't have the spec sheet in front of me; nor am I sure they use the same ISO for a duplicating film (there's a different ISO speed for enlarging paper, for instance).

D96 is a cine developer, a little less target contrast than D76. Overall similar recipe, though -- metol, hydroquinone, borax, but less sulfite and less developing agents, as I recall. It's a published formula, easy enough to find and compare the two. Lower contrast is preferred for cine negs because it's easier to control the final print contrast by increasing in the print than by decreasing.

It occurred to me this morning that Lomography's recommendation being 50% more than ORWO's could just be an increase in contrast for stills as opposed to cine. Also, I note that Rodinal gave the lowest apparent speed (based on visible shadow detail) in the Lomography examples. I used to get a small speed increase with Parodinal, but I did it by developing at 1:50, extended time (roughly a two-stop push equivalent), and agitation only every 3rd minute. That was good for about a half stop of increased shadow detail, without much if any increase in contrast (low agitation improves compensating effect of the high dilution).

I'll see where it goes in Df96 first (double time for the extended fix they suggest), then try Xtol-R next roll, and see where I am on speed at that point.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Okay, first test (short) roll of DN21 processed in Df96 -- I ran it at 80F with continuous agitation and gave only the recommended time (3:00 plus the compensation for previously processed films). Clearly it was a bit underexposed (possibly loss of speed due to color of the light), and may have been affected by fog on the lens (outdoors was both a good bit warmer and much more humid) -- but there's also a rather odd look to it. With light behind the film, it looks nice and clear in the rebates and deeper shadows, but if I view in reflection, with a strong light, from the emulsion side against a dark background, it looks milky with a darker negative image. I don't believe it's under-fixed -- I'd see that in transmission as well as reflection. I think it has a subtle silver antihalation layer, though it's not clear why that would be in a film that isn't intended for reversal processing -- and the processing recommendations are conventional negative process, not reversal.

I did see the previously reported milkiness while wet, and could not see the edge markings through the base side (though they were clear from the emulsion side) while the film was wet. I'm not sure it's fully dry yet, so I'll give it overnight.

I went ahead and reloaded the cassette, it's now in my Ricoh Singlex II (battery's dead after long storage, but it's a zinc-air with adapter and I can get another easily and locally -- and the battery is only for the meter; camera is fully mechanical). That camera is equipped with my Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4. I shot a few exposures, again with the sun setting and fighting lens fogging from the humidity. I'll take it out tomorrow when the sun is high and finish off the rest of the 20 exposures I loaded, then run that strip in Xtol.

 

[alter ego 6x9]

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