Arista Ortho Litho 2.0 questions.

MrBrowning · May 28, 2014

This past weekend I shot some Arista Ortho Litho 2.0 4x5 film. I developed it in a tray with LPD developer 1:4. I'm wondering is this the wrong paper developer for continuous tone or did I not dilute it enough? Oh and for what it's worth I shot it in a Harman Titan pinhole camera.

Attached is an inverted scan of the photo.

TIA.

Tom1956 · May 29, 2014

Apparently not. Perhaps you'd be better off with a phenidone-type developer. As for me I use Willi Beutler's on X-ray film and manage to climb at least partway out of the contrast pit. Don't bother with Dektol either, or even high-dilution D-76. Looks like you need some serious contrast-buster to me.

pdeeh · May 29, 2014

There have been a couple of recent threads on this and similar high contrast films.

I don't understand the rationale of using (inherently high contrast) paper developers with these films; it strikes me that it makes sense to start with very low contrast developers ...

I thought D23 would be a better bet, and that seems to be confirmed by another forum member who says he has been getting good results from this film using D23 diluted up to 1:14 while shooting at EI around 1 or even 1/2

(see this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists))

Newt_on_Swings · May 29, 2014

Ive had problems with that film as continuous tone as well. I tried very diluted LPD, Dektol, and D76, but still got really harsh images. I may try Rodinal stand 1:100, as that worked in the past for me with some old kodalith films to create continuous tone images that were less contrasty.

BTW, is that the old abandoned Cornish Estate, by Breakneck Ridge/Cold Springs NY? > http://www.hudsonvalleyruins.org/yasinsac/cornish/cornish1.html

Tom1956 · May 29, 2014

pdeeh said:
There have been a couple of recent threads on this and similar high contrast films.

I don't understand the rationale of using (inherently high contrast) paper developers with these films; it strikes me that it makes sense to start with very low contrast developers ...

I thought D23 would be a better bet, and that seems to be confirmed by another forum member who says he has been getting good results from this film using D23 diluted up to 1:14 while shooting at EI around 1 or even 1/2

(see this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists))

You need to check out Beutlers. It stretches contrast-control to the bitter end as available out of a simple Metol-Sulfite mix.

MrBrowning · May 29, 2014

Tom1956 said:
Apparently not. Perhaps you'd be better off with a phenidone-type developer. As for me I use Willi Beutler's on X-ray film and manage to climb at least partway out of the contrast pit. Don't bother with Dektol either, or even high-dilution D-76. Looks like you need some serious contrast-buster to me.

Thanks. I have read some on Beutler's Developer when I was doing research on Barry Thornton's Two Bath developer. I use BTTB for most of my work (except IR and a few other films). Do you think it would work as well as Beutler's?

pdeeh said:
There have been a couple of recent threads on this and similar high contrast films.

I don't understand the rationale of using (inherently high contrast) paper developers with these films; it strikes me that it makes sense to start with very low contrast developers ...

I thought D23 would be a better bet, and that seems to be confirmed by another forum member who says he has been getting good results from this film using D23 diluted up to 1:14 while shooting at EI around 1 or even 1/2

(see this thread: (there was a url link here which no longer exists))

Looks interesting. I might have to give it a shot, though I would have thought D23 would have been a bad choice. I guess I was wrong.

Newt_on_Swings said:
Ive had problems with that film as continuous tone as well. I tried very diluted LPD, Dektol, and D76, but still got really harsh images. I may try Rodinal stand 1:100, as that worked in the past for me with some old kodalith films to create continuous tone images that were less contrasty.

BTW, is that the old abandoned Cornish Estate, by Breakneck Ridge/Cold Springs NY? > http://www.hudsonvalleyruins.org/yasinsac/cornish/cornish1.html

No it's the Goddard Mansion at Fort Williams in Portland Maine. If I remember correctly it was built before the fort and eventually became housing for non-commissioned officers and a non-commissioned officers club. The Cornish Estate has been someplace I want to visit but I never seem to get out that way. I'm always heading north.

Tom1956 · May 29, 2014

I'm not familiar with the Thorntons. I've never fooled with 2-bath developers. To me all they are is a second bath of a stronger alkali to force the remaining developer that has soaked into the emulsion, to exhaust itself more completely in the areas of low density. I don't see much useful benefit. It might raise these areas up from the toe of the curve to some small degree, but nothing truly miraculous. But now it's only my opinion.Somebody else might say I'm full of it.

Edit: on X-ray film, D-23 has not done the trick for me. Still too contrasty.

Tom1956 · May 29, 2014

I might mention that I've been using a good bit more dilute Beutlers than is called for in the Beutlers instructions. I experimented and found 1,1,16 to make X-ray film look pretty good. You have to pin down a film speed and keep meters and shutters in calibration. There's no latitude there. You can block up densitiy all too easily, and still not get the low density off the toe.

bvy · May 29, 2014

I posted this in another thread.
View attachment 84994

This was Perceptol 1+1 for 3 minutes, scanned and inverted only -- not because I thought Perceptol was a particularly good match for Ortho Litho film. Rather, I was killing two birds with one stone -- doing a close focus test and "proofing" newly mixed developer.

Tom1956 · May 30, 2014

If I wasn't such a dirt-poor cheapskate, you know what I'd do if I had to perform a whole new series of experiments on this high-contrast ortho stuff? I' send off for a few cans of Acu-1 developer and play with that a while. Remember, all you're trying to do is snatch 10 reasonably linear zones out from between a baseline and top line that are already very close together. It can be done, because I've done it with Beutlers. Probably would have been easier if I had broken down and bought some Acu-1. Just an afterthought.

mweintraub · May 30, 2014

Your photo reminds me of this.

http://photography.nationalgeograph...os/milestones-photography/niepce-first-photo/

MrBrowning · May 31, 2014

Thanks for the comments. I'll be trying it again soon using Beutlers.

NB23 · May 31, 2014

I use mine at iso 1, 2 or 3 and develop normally in hc:b. 5 minutes, shake every 30 seconds.

FRANOL · Jun 1, 2014

POTA, 12 min. works fine with Efke Orthocromatic 25, 35mm.

Whiteymorange · Jun 1, 2014

I can tell you one thing: over-exposed Arista Ortho in Rodinol 1/150 for 20 minutes in a roller gives you BLACK and WHITE. None of that gray stuff in the middle. Mistakes tell you some things after all

MrBrowning · Jun 2, 2014

Whiteymorange said:
I can tell you one thing: over-exposed Arista Ortho in Rodinol 1/150 for 20 minutes in a roller gives you BLACK and WHITE. None of that gray stuff in the middle. Mistakes tell you some things after all

That's successful Black & White photography then. I keep failing at it i guess because I get that grey stuff (except with Arista Ortho).

I'm going to go out this week and shoot some and try both Beutler's and some very dilute HC110 and see what happens. Hopefully I get grey.

Jim Noel · Jun 2, 2014

Paper developers are by their nature more active than are film developers, thus they produce more contrasty results.
Use your film developer and dilute it 1+4 or 1+5 and your results will be less contrasty. If you use HC 110 try a dilution of about 1+100 to 1+150. My personal choice is a very dilute alteration of D-23.

Arista Ortho Litho 2.0 questions.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency