Arista Ortho 3.0 for Alternative Processes Dupe negs

[Kino]

Wanting to enlarge 35mm, 120 and 4x5 B&W negatives for larger Cyanotypes for now; maybe other processes in the future. I have a box of Arista Ortho 3.0 in 8x10 size to start with; again, maybe larger if this works out. Going to go the traditional projection enlarged interpositive to contact printed dupe negative route with just the Arista (or Fuji HR-U?)

Was referencing the 1st Edition of "The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes" by Christopher James and the LC-1/LC-2 formulas, but noticed there were two additional editions printed in 2008 (2nd) and 2015 (3rd).

Thought there might be updated information on these formulas, so I started searching and found a reference by user @Vaughn that listed a different LC-1 formula that was not 2 part:

1st Edition, 2002, pages 46 & 47.

Stock A
750ml distilled water at 125F
3.0g Metol
60g Sodium sulfite
3.0g Hydroquinone
Distilled cold water to make 1 Liter

Stock B
10g Sodium bisulfite
Distilled cold water to make 1 Liter

Various recommended dilution combinations for taming contrast, avoiding mottle and such.

The version @Vaughn cited:

2nd Edition, 2008, page 100.

Single solution
750ml distilled water at 125F
4 g Metol
80 g Sodium sulfite
4 g Hydroquinone
20 g Sodium bisulfite
add distilled cold water to make 1 liter stock solution

For use, dilute 1:5 to 1:10...5 to 10 minutes at 75F

Now there is the 3rd edition, (of which I don't have a copy at the present time) but the online index to the book shows reference to LC-1 and LC-2 as well, but I am wondering if it has been updated/changed as well.

Can anyone confirm if there have been any changes?

Anyone compared the original to the 2nd version cited? The 2nd version sound more convenient, but is probably less flexible.

Shut up and just test it? (yeah, I thought so...)

Thanks for any opinions.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I just use a particular dilution of HC-110 for contone Arista Ortho Litho applications.

 

[Alan Townsend]

Wanting to enlarge 35mm, 120 and 4x5 B&W negatives for larger Cyanotypes for now; maybe other processes in the future. I have a box of Arista Ortho 3.0 in 8x10 size to start with; again, maybe larger if this works out. Going to go the traditional projection enlarged interpositive to contact printed dupe negative route with just the Arista (or Fuji HR-U?)

For what your doing it will be difficult using the ortho litho alone due to its high contrast. The regular cyanotypes, you need a density range of around 1.0-1.3 which is likely slightly lower contrast the the camera negatives you have. My personal method is to make optical 1:1 copy interpositives on the same film I use in the camera. This required a really good macro lens and a mirror lock up on the camera. Such an interpositive will give an extremely low contrast and density range. This can be low enough that an enlargement to internegative on the ortho litho will work well using slightly diluted camera film developer, or even diluted print developer.

An alternate that would likely work would be to make an enlarged interpositive on the ortho litho film using diluted camera film developer, then contact print this on hru xray film. which is much lower contrast than ortho litho. You can also use diluted film or paper developer for that. The xray film is very sensitive to light, so you will need to figure a way make a short exposure. Also difficult to process due to very soft gelatin on both sides. You need a smooth bottom try for that, or you could use an 11 x14 size freezer ziplock bag for the processing. Easiest to leave the film in the same bag for all the processing steps including washing.

 

[Cor]

I had good results by making bigger negatives on ARISTA Ortho from 6*6 film by reversal processing. Takes work to fine tune and is somewhat laborious, but it is a one step process.
See: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html

Good luck,

Cor

 

[Alan Townsend]

I had good results by making bigger negatives on ARISTA Ortho from 6*6 film by reversal processing. Takes work to fine tune and is somewhat laborious, but it is a one step process.

I spent almost a year recently trying to make that work. Seems simple, but very complex in the details. In the end, the enlarged negatives will have lower contrast in the shadows and higher in the highllights, which does not work well for siderotypes, but maybe not too bad for carbon printing. Siderotypes work best with enlarged negatives that have higher contrast in the shadows and lower in the highlights, like developer compensation gives with a shouldering effect. This is not as good as a correction curve applied in making a "digital negative" but much better than nothing in my opinion.

See: https://unblinkingeye.com/Articles/NbyR/nbyr.html

Good luck,

Cor

 

[Duboscq159]

low contrast ortho-litho processing, PART I — JESSE ANDREWARTHA

Orthochromatic, ultra-large format and cheap, the use of ortho-litho films in pictorial applications has been limited by its characteristic extreme high contrast. In this article, we will discuss a cheap, foolproof method to reduce contrast, enabling the use of standard film developers and printing

www.hirudinfilms.com

I've not used this solution yet but seems to make sense.

 

[Kino]

I've not used this solution yet but seems to make sense.

Thank you. i will have to give this a try.

 

[Cor]

I spent almost a year recently trying to make that work. Seems simple, but very complex in the details. In the end, the enlarged negatives will have lower contrast in the shadows and higher in the highllights, which does not work well for siderotypes, but maybe not too bad for carbon printing. Siderotypes work best with enlarged negatives that have higher contrast in the shadows and lower in the highlights, like developer compensation gives with a shouldering effect. This is not as good as a correction curve applied in making a "digital negative" but much better than nothing in my opinion.

Interesting, I do recall I had to burn in my skies considerably when printing the reversed Ortho negative as a Kallitype, which was not needed when printing the original 6*4.5. Have to dig up the print to see how the shadows fared, I believe that they had more punch, so in line with your observation.

Best,

Cor

 

[Alan Townsend]

low contrast ortho-litho processing, PART I — JESSE ANDREWARTHA

Orthochromatic, ultra-large format and cheap, the use of ortho-litho films in pictorial applications has been limited by its characteristic extreme high contrast. In this article, we will discuss a cheap, foolproof method to reduce contrast, enabling the use of standard film developers and printing

www.hirudinfilms.com

I may play with this idea this winter since I have so much sodium sulfite available since switching to MC-glycerol, which is a sulfite free developer. The only reference I am finding online to "pyrazolo [3,4-d] pyrimidine" relate to it's use as an anticancer medication. I wasn't aware ortho litho films have a developer accelerator incorporated in them. I know there are developer incorporated ortho litho films, but those are not the same as the regular ones. Regular ortho litho film, much like xray film, process very quickly at high temperature due to their lack of a hardened gelatin antiscratch layer. The process machines use very soft rubber rollers. These films process fast because of the lack of that hard layer, not some extra chemcal added, as far as I know, which doesn't say much. Maybe this is why d23 works well with these films is the high sodium sulfite content.

I am a bit skeptical on this. Have wondered why there was such a great loss of interest in ortho litho films in recent years. Always assumed it was the widespread use of digital negatives that killed it for interpositives and internegatives as well as xray film for in camera use. Xray film is much much lower contrast than ortho litho. Also about 100X as sensitive, making it a no brainer for in-camera use. For interpositives and internegstives, it's too sensitive in the darkroom, and the handling problems from having two soft sides is a pain.

I've not used this solution yet but seems to make sense.

 

[Kino]

An inkjet printer is simply not an option for me. They are far too maintenance intensive and what few I have owned, I have spent more time unclogging and troubleshooting them than printing with them. I don't care what experience others have, I don't want one; period.

I will keep experimenting with Ortho Lith and X-Ray; they are fairly inexpensive and I have the time...

 

[Alan Townsend]

An inkjet printer is simply not an option for me. They are far too maintenance intensive and what few I have owned, I have spent more time unclogging and troubleshooting them than printing with them. I don't care what experience others have, I don't want one; period.

I swore about 6 years ago to never buy anothing injet printer for anything again.

I will keep experimenting with Ortho Lith and X-Ray; they are fairly inexpensive and I have the time...

Good plan. That's what I did too. The main issue with ortho litho is getting consistant results, which makes many trials and errors needed before a good result. Tray developing is difficult with this film since it develops quickly and likely uneven results from over-agitating are easy to get. I use a set of rotary processing drums from my 1990 color printing era. These also work well for b+w printing and are best for processing ortho litho film due to their constant slow rotation. I use a piece of no-see-um plastic window screening on the inside of the cylinder to give some room for fluids on the back side to remove the anti halation layer.

I also recommend using a darkroom exposure meter of some type to help getting proper exposure times and contrast. One with a smaller sensor is better than a larger one. This helps the trial and error testing that will happen after that to reduce film waste. There will be trial and error exposure testing and contrast testing as well, so a fair amount of film will be used initially. Best to start with smaller sized negatives, like 5x7 and use the results to scale up to larger sizes.

It is worth the trouble and will be an educational experience. Personally, I just don't care for doing my photography on a computer. I prefer film and chemicals. That's what I learned years ago and what I enjoy most today as well.

 

[cliveh]

Wanting to enlarge 35mm, 120 and 4x5 B&W negatives for larger Cyanotypes for now; maybe other processes in the future. I have a box of Arista Ortho 3.0 in 8x10 size to start with; again, maybe larger if this works out. Going to go the traditional projection enlarged interpositive to contact printed dupe negative route with just the Arista (or Fuji HR-U?)

Was referencing the 1st Edition of "The Book of Alternative Photographic Processes" by Christopher James and the LC-1/LC-2 formulas, but noticed there were two additional editions printed in 2008 (2nd) and 2015 (3rd).

Thought there might be updated information on these formulas, so I started searching and found a reference by user @Vaughn that listed a different LC-1 formula that was not 2 part:

1st Edition, 2002, pages 46 & 47.

Stock A
750ml distilled water at 125F
3.0g Metol
60g Sodium sulfite
3.0g Hydroquinone
Distilled cold water to make 1 Liter

Stock B
10g Sodium bisulfite
Distilled cold water to make 1 Liter

Various recommended dilution combinations for taming contrast, avoiding mottle and such.

The version @Vaughn cited:

2nd Edition, 2008, page 100.

Single solution
750ml distilled water at 125F
4 g Metol
80 g Sodium sulfite
4 g Hydroquinone
20 g Sodium bisulfite
add distilled cold water to make 1 liter stock solution

For use, dilute 1:5 to 1:10...5 to 10 minutes at 75F

Now there is the 3rd edition, (of which I don't have a copy at the present time) but the online index to the book shows reference to LC-1 and LC-2 as well, but I am wondering if it has been updated/changed as well.

Can anyone confirm if there have been any changes?

Anyone compared the original to the 2nd version cited? The 2nd version sound more convenient, but is probably less flexible.

Shut up and just test it? (yeah, I thought so...)

Thanks for any opinions.

I understand your first paragraph, but why do you need all this formulation to develop ortho film. I have experience in this field and just use multigrade print developer (no special formulation required). I contacted a 6 X 6cm neg onto ortho to produce a positive. I then used a de vere enlarger to project a 6 X 6 cm positive onto 4 sheeets of ortho butted together. The ortho negative image then taped together with magic tape (not seen by UV) can then be used to contact for an alternative process under UV.

 

[Kino]

I understand your first paragraph, but why do you need all this formulation to develop ortho film. I have experience in this field and just use multigrade print developer (no special formulation required). I contacted a 6 X 6cm neg onto ortho to produce a positive. I then used a de vere enlarger to project a 6 X 6 cm positive onto 4 sheeets of ortho butted together. The ortho negative image then taped together with magic tape (not seen by UV) can then be used to contact for an alternative process under UV.

I could, of course, just use highly dilluted Dektol or LPD, but found this formula and thought I would try it.

By "Magic Tape" please elucidate; bought from a sorcerer or what specific brand?

 

[cliveh]

I could, of course, just use highly dilluted Dektol or LPD, but found this formula and thought I would try it.

By "Magic Tape" please elucidate; bought from a sorcerer or what specific brand?

It's brand name is magic tape. It is not clear, but grey and seems invisible to UV light.

 

[Kino]

It's brand name is magic tape. It is not clear, but grey and seems invisible to UV light.

I know of a Scotch Brand Magic Tape, but no tape just named Magic Tape. Probably the same, I guess.

 

[Alan Townsend]

I understand your first paragraph, but why do you need all this formulation to develop ortho film.

The OP question was about ortho litho, quite different from just ortho. It's a very high contrast material. I assume he wants to get good midtones and print quality rather than just some high contrast result, which is easy to do as you say.

I have experience in this field and just use multigrade print developer (no special formulation required). I contacted a 6 X 6cm neg onto ortho to produce a positive. I then used a de vere enlarger to project a 6 X 6 cm positive onto 4 sheeets of ortho butted together. The ortho negative image then taped together with magic tape (not seen by UV) can then be used to contact for an alternative process under UV.

 

[cliveh]

I know of a Scotch Brand Magic Tape, but no tape just named Magic Tape. Probably the same, I guess.

Sorry, just checked. It's called invisible tape, bought from W H Smiths in the UK.

 

[Alan Townsend]

Wanting to enlarge 35mm, 120 and 4x5 B&W negatives for larger Cyanotypes for now; maybe other processes in the future. I have a box of Arista Ortho 3.0 in 8x10 size to start with; again, maybe larger if this works out. Going to go the traditional projection enlarged interpositive to contact printed dupe negative route with just the Arista (or Fuji HR-U?)

Another way would be to use xray hru to make a reversal processed enlarged internegative. That could work, and be much simpler than other methods. I haven't done that but was thinking experimenting on this this winter. For this you would likely need a print strength developer to get the contrast up, then use the method already mentioned on the Unblinkin Eye Ed Buffalo article only without the flashing using bleach, clear, rexpose, and final development. You may need to add some very diluted fixer to the developer if the density is too high. HRU is pretty linear over a moderate exposure range and is much lower contrast than ortho litho. There are also other ways of doing the reversal, like using ferric chloride bleach and ammonia clear, which would be safer and easilier in some ways.

There are Youtube videos on reversal processing using the ferric chloride/ammonia method